|
On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt: "...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants." And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language?
I felt like some ignorant hick reading DemigodcelpH's earlier post that you're quoting, since half of the sentences were incomprehensible - which was annoying since he just insulted me for being dumb and not understanding the concepts. >.>
In any case, the abstract game theory concepts that he kept relating things to could also be described in layman's terms, instead of jargon, so I don't feel too bad about it. It's his responsibility to make his writing accessible to the people he is responding to.
|
As for Big J I am done responding to him, as he seems to be in the state where he's collapsing under the weight of his own name-calling (his latest "rebuttal" seems to be asserting I've never read books on X, which of course, is unknowable and a childish remark), confirmation bias, and repeat refusal to acknowledge counter-evidence.
On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt: "...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language?
I never accused him of being ambiguous I just accepted that possibility that he had a lapse in understanding, and there's nothing wrong with what you're quoting of mine, as every word as a very specific meaning. I'm being quite clear, and simply because you don't follow doesn't necessarily mean it has "little to no" meaning in the discussion. That is an entirely unfounded claim.
On May 04 2013 10:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt:
"...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language? I felt like some ignorant hick reading DemigodcelpH's earlier post that you're quoting, since half of the sentences were incomprehensible - which was annoying since he just insulted me for being dumb and not understanding the concepts. >.> In any case, the abstract game theory concepts that he kept relating things to could also be described in layman's terms, instead of jargon, so I don't feel too bad about it. It's his responsibility to make his writing accessible to the people he is responding to.
I apologize as you seem to be quite reasonable, and I'm not trying to make anyone feel this way; I was being rather specific there actually, as that point is one of the more important ones so if there's something you don't understand in particular I don't mind mapping it out for you; sciences involving abstractions like game design tend to be involve higher level language when communicating more advanced concepts like the fundamental relationship of in-game (meta) laws and governing laws because the strategy genre, in it's simplest form, is a scaling of real-world mental logistics (problem solving) and situations; for example this is why all games involving some form of physical area simulation also involve Euclidean geometry making some meta (in-game) laws (such strategic attenuation) subject to the authority of this specific higher level governing rule.
This kind of higher level↔meta level relationship is not only observable in the instance of RTS games involving physical area simulation (which not incidentally happens to be about all of them), and is why things certain things are healthy to the genre (such as a proper implementation of positional play). Core RTS concepts (which indirectly influence which higher level (real world) laws apply because of the concept implementation stage) will always be the same or similar (and if not then you violate the definition of the genre such as CnC 4 being properly defined as RTT and not RTS) meaning that meta-laws are not all arbitrary despite what intuition would incline you to believe.
This is why positional play being valuable for the game is not subjective.
(I also advise you not to make the same mistake as Big J and confuse meta-level RTS tactics being governed by higher level game theory in the context of the study of decision making, and meta-level RTS tactics being equated to being a specific property of that higher level theory as these are strictly and absolutely different things — in any case that was all a bit brief but I posted a bit more about it on the last page.)
|
I was just wondering what people would think of the following.
widow mine
- cost changed from 75/25 to 125/25
- supply reduced from 2 to 1
- damage changed from 125+35 vs shields 40 splash, to 80 and 25 splash
- rearm time changed from 40 to 15 seconds.
Effectively you are trading damage output for faster rate of fire and trading an increase of 50 minerals for 1 less supply.
With reduced damage and increased cost that initial shot is a lot weaker which is bad as often mines are used in such a way that they only live long enough for one shot.
On the flip side retention of mines becomes a lot more powerful there by keeping the mines overall previous strength if not making it even better assuming the terran has the increased skills/micro ability to exploit this fact.
Overall this is intended as an increase in the skill needed rather then a straight nerf.
|
On May 04 2013 09:42 tadL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:48 Rabiator wrote:
They are screwed and consequently this design of SC2 is "not healthy" because only a small minority of players can actually play the game at its full potential while the others get stupid games where they lose to "overpowered" units which are beyond their capability to defend against.
I just play games that are designed this way. So it means something if you are able to handle it. You have something to improve and people to look up till you can beat them. This gives me joy! I stopped with games that went your path and I completly ignore games/platforms that are designed this way. That I am a minority is ok for me. I don't dodge the challenge and people who are doing it are anyway a waste in a community. And they are a thread for good high quality games as you can see by all EA games basicly and the upcoming ones. Just because I have problems to hit fastballs I don't go to the MLB and cry over and over till they just put in a rule that says "no fastballs" to make the game more accessible for the "majority" what is just different word for being lazy. Sry this is just what i always understand. There are games out that are so casual. In RTS EA has for sure a game that has what you are searching.
In Broodwar you didnt really have units designed to be "ok, I win" when you use them in the lower skill levels (like the harrassment units I mentioned) and yet you had a challenging game with the potential to rise in skill quite a lot. So these things are NOT NECESSARY in such a game to have a competitive game. Even Reaver drops were not autowin due to the big investment you had to make into and the uncontrollable nature of the shots (which could dud and took roundabout ways to their target).
The whole point is that the game of SC2 would be much better if it had a greatly reduced economy and a reduced unit density on the battlefield. It would be easier to control for the not so skilled because battles would be slower due to less concentrated firepower. This would ultimately make it a better game for those who play "for fun" or not so often.
I have said it many times already that the unlimited unit selection and super tight unit movement are the basis of some bad balancing and that the game would be much better with far fewer units on the battlefield [*]. Why would that be so terrible?
- Is a fight between two Zerglings on each side and one player winning with both his still alive so unexciting to watch? Does it involve less skill than controlling a huge ass swarm which you can reproduce at any time? Not really.
- Is it less exciting because the explosions are smaller? I dont think so ... quite the contrary, because any loss at lower numbers is a bigger blow and thus creates more drama.
Btw. ... what is "my path"? I have nothing against a challenging game where you can improve your skill level - like Broodwar for example - but I am totally against a game which overwhelms the not-so-skilled player with the amount of stuff they have to do at the same time and focus fully on the split-second-ACTION in a real time STRATEGY game. One is fast and the other should NOT involve a requirement for being a fast clicker at the casual level. It is possible as BW has shown! There is too much emphasis on the economy and production capability and action in SC2 and not enough on strategy. That is bad for an RTS.
Please stop insinuating that I want an easy-mode and idiotic game focused around casuals. I want a challenging game which does not give casuals "random losses" against other casuals because they cant cope with X (some harrassment unit they didnt scout / prepare for OR a total switch from "economy" to "unit production" and then getting overwhelmed for example). That is counterproductive, because it isnt fun. Losing isnt too bad, but you have to have had at least the illusion of a chance and not a clear cut "well I had nothing to defend against that" type of losses. You have to actually PLAY the game to get better, but such junk will keep people from playing.
[*] The "Stalker vs Marine" argument: At low numbers these units are balanced on a 1v1 basis and even when you have a 1:3 ratio the Stalker can still fight the battle for some time. At higher numbers though the SMALLER Marines stack up tighter and thus have a greater "dps per area" than the Stalkers and thus annihilate them easily (and this is without Stimpack). Thus Blizzard "had to" introduce the spells Forcefield and Blink to make the Stalker viable even at medium and higher numbers.
|
"Mass carriers = instant win"
Does that ring any bells?
|
On May 04 2013 10:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:As for Big J I am done responding to him, as he seems to be in the state where he's collapsing under the weight of his own name-calling (his latest "rebuttal" seems to be asserting I've never read books on X, which of course, is unknowable and a childish remark), confirmation bias, and repeat refusal to acknowledge counter-evidence. Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt: "...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language? I never accused him of being ambiguous I just accepted that possibility that he had a lapse in understanding, and there's nothing wrong with what you're quoting of mine, as every word as a very specific meaning. I'm being quite clear, and simply because you don't follow doesn't necessarily mean it has "little to no" meaning in the discussion. That is an entirely unfounded claim. Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 10:11 Grumbels wrote:On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt:
"...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language? I felt like some ignorant hick reading DemigodcelpH's earlier post that you're quoting, since half of the sentences were incomprehensible - which was annoying since he just insulted me for being dumb and not understanding the concepts. >.> In any case, the abstract game theory concepts that he kept relating things to could also be described in layman's terms, instead of jargon, so I don't feel too bad about it. It's his responsibility to make his writing accessible to the people he is responding to. I apologize as you seem to be quite reasonable, and I'm not trying to make anyone feel this way; I was being rather specific there actually, as that point is one of the more important ones so if there's something you don't understand in particular I don't mind mapping it out for you; sciences involving abstractions like game design tend to be involve higher level language when communicating more advanced concepts like the fundamental relationship of in-game (meta) laws and governing laws because the strategy genre, in it's simplest form, is a scaling of real-world mental logistics (problem solving) and situations; for example this is why all games involving some form of physical area simulation also involve Euclidean geometry making some meta (in-game) laws (such strategic attenuation) subject to the authority of this specific higher level governing rule. This kind of higher level↔meta level relationship is not only observable in the instance of RTS games involving physical area simulation (which not incidentally happens to be about all of them), and is why things certain things are healthy to the genre (such as a proper implementation of positional play), as core RTS concepts (which indirectly influence which higher level (real world) laws apply because of the concept implementation stage) will always be the same or similar (and if not then you violate the definition of the genre such as CnC 4 being properly defined as RTT and not RTS) meaning that meta-laws are not all arbitrary despite what intuition would incline you to believe. This is why positional play being valuable for the game is not subjective.
(I also advise you not to make the same mistake as Big J and confuse meta-level RTS tactics being governed by higher level game theory in the context of the study of decision making, and meta-level RTS tactics being equated to being a specific property of that higher level theory as these are strictly and absolutely different things — in any case that was all a bit brief but I posted a bit more about it on the last page.)
As a scientist, if someone asks me a question about my field I will answer it in a way that they will understand. I can do that because I have a good understanding of what is really going on, so I know what basic knowledge is important. Basically, I want the other people to understand the answer to the question so I explain it to them in a way that is still correct, but understandable. What you are doing, is answering questions intentionally in a way such that no one can understand what you are saying. That doesn't promote discussion, and as someone who has answered a lot of questions to people at different levels (from junior high school to college level), answering questions with jargon is the fastest way for people to not believe anything you say. If you truly know what you are talking about, and you understand the concepts, you don't need to hide behind technical words.
And yes, positional play being valuable is actually completely subjective, you cannot prove that at all.
|
On May 04 2013 11:40 aksfjh wrote:
"Mass carriers = instant win"
Does that ring any bells?
If you get the resources to get these carriers then you probably have won already and it isnt as easy as it is to run two Reapers into a base of someone who only just starts producing Marines. Stop thinking in high end games and think about mid and low range of players; they are COMPLETELY screwed by those Reapers and will lose instantly.
In BW you had a bad economy in mid and low range of skill, so you couldnt really get those carriers so your example means nothing while the high economy in SC2 makes it easy to get lots of units easily even at low skill level. In any case Carriers is only ONE example for BW (available at the furthest end of tech) while there are LOTS for SC2 (available partly at the beginning of tech) because SC2 is based around the critical numbers concept. Dustin basically admitted that last year in one of his China interviews that the players want the deathball. That is the big problem of SC2 ... they focus too much on gett lots of units and making them easily controllable in a concentrated fashion.
The movement mechanics in BW alone prevented critical numbers for ground units simply because they couldnt achieve the necessary unit density. Thus you could defend a position with a handful of units since the attackers would stream in one after another and only through skill would you be able to attack in a tighter clump or from more sides at the same time. In SC2 this skill requirement is not there anymore and thus one critical part of the defenders advantage is removed. SC2 has no defenders advantage while the attacker has the one he always has ... choosing the time and place of the engagement. That is bad, because it makes it too easy for the attacker to win ... in addition SC2 pushed the advantages towards the attacker through introducing the "circumventing mechanics" of cliffwalking for the Colossus and Blink for the Stalker and even the pathblocking Broodlings from the Broodlord (which isnt a defensive unit). Its simply too much focused on ATTACK and critical numbers are the worst part of it.
Critical numbers is a bad concept because of the "invulnerable" or "too great efficiency" the units develop. Balancing units is usually done in small numbers but they get a different level of efficiency when the numbers get bigger.
|
On May 04 2013 12:29 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 10:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:As for Big J I am done responding to him, as he seems to be in the state where he's collapsing under the weight of his own name-calling (his latest "rebuttal" seems to be asserting I've never read books on X, which of course, is unknowable and a childish remark), confirmation bias, and repeat refusal to acknowledge counter-evidence. On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt: "...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language? I never accused him of being ambiguous I just accepted that possibility that he had a lapse in understanding, and there's nothing wrong with what you're quoting of mine, as every word as a very specific meaning. I'm being quite clear, and simply because you don't follow doesn't necessarily mean it has "little to no" meaning in the discussion. That is an entirely unfounded claim. On May 04 2013 10:11 Grumbels wrote:On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt:
"...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language? I felt like some ignorant hick reading DemigodcelpH's earlier post that you're quoting, since half of the sentences were incomprehensible - which was annoying since he just insulted me for being dumb and not understanding the concepts. >.> In any case, the abstract game theory concepts that he kept relating things to could also be described in layman's terms, instead of jargon, so I don't feel too bad about it. It's his responsibility to make his writing accessible to the people he is responding to. I apologize as you seem to be quite reasonable, and I'm not trying to make anyone feel this way; I was being rather specific there actually, as that point is one of the more important ones so if there's something you don't understand in particular I don't mind mapping it out for you; sciences involving abstractions like game design tend to be involve higher level language when communicating more advanced concepts like the fundamental relationship of in-game (meta) laws and governing laws because the strategy genre, in it's simplest form, is a scaling of real-world mental logistics (problem solving) and situations; for example this is why all games involving some form of physical area simulation also involve Euclidean geometry making some meta (in-game) laws (such strategic attenuation) subject to the authority of this specific higher level governing rule. This kind of higher level↔meta level relationship is not only observable in the instance of RTS games involving physical area simulation (which not incidentally happens to be about all of them), and is why things certain things are healthy to the genre (such as a proper implementation of positional play), as core RTS concepts (which indirectly influence which higher level (real world) laws apply because of the concept implementation stage) will always be the same or similar (and if not then you violate the definition of the genre such as CnC 4 being properly defined as RTT and not RTS) meaning that meta-laws are not all arbitrary despite what intuition would incline you to believe. This is why positional play being valuable for the game is not subjective.
(I also advise you not to make the same mistake as Big J and confuse meta-level RTS tactics being governed by higher level game theory in the context of the study of decision making, and meta-level RTS tactics being equated to being a specific property of that higher level theory as these are strictly and absolutely different things — in any case that was all a bit brief but I posted a bit more about it on the last page.)
As a scientist, if someone asks me a question about my field I will answer it in a way that they will understand. I can do that because I have a good understanding of what is really going on, so I know what basic knowledge is important. Basically, I want the other people to understand the answer to the question so I explain it to them in a way that is still correct, but understandable. What you are doing, is answering questions intentionally in a way such that no one can understand what you are saying. That doesn't promote discussion, and as someone who has answered a lot of questions to people at different levels (from junior high school to college level), answering questions with jargon is the fastest way for people to not believe anything you say. If you truly know what you are talking about, and you understand the concepts, you don't need to hide behind technical words.
Attack the argument; not the person. Know that such a juvenile tactic isn't going to work.
Simply because you don't understand even the reiterated version I've posted for Grumbels doesn't mean it's invalid especially considering there's no specialized jargon in there whatsoever. Until you can come up with a proper rebuttal this is your loss.
On May 04 2013 12:29 convention wrote:And yes, positional play being valuable is actually completely subjective, you cannot prove that at all.
False, as a plain statement made without a supporting argument is automatically invalid. See above — I've gone explicitly gone over this.
|
On May 04 2013 11:40 aksfjh wrote:
"Mass carriers = instant win"
Does that ring any bells?
Not really. mass 3-3 zerglings or tanks will do a quick work of your base(s). You'll be eliminated with your carriers hanging in the air. + Show Spoiler +most embarassing way to lose
|
On May 04 2013 15:17 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 12:29 convention wrote:On May 04 2013 10:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:As for Big J I am done responding to him, as he seems to be in the state where he's collapsing under the weight of his own name-calling (his latest "rebuttal" seems to be asserting I've never read books on X, which of course, is unknowable and a childish remark), confirmation bias, and repeat refusal to acknowledge counter-evidence. On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt: "...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language? I never accused him of being ambiguous I just accepted that possibility that he had a lapse in understanding, and there's nothing wrong with what you're quoting of mine, as every word as a very specific meaning. I'm being quite clear, and simply because you don't follow doesn't necessarily mean it has "little to no" meaning in the discussion. That is an entirely unfounded claim. On May 04 2013 10:11 Grumbels wrote:On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post. He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion. Or my favorite excerpt:
"...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language? I felt like some ignorant hick reading DemigodcelpH's earlier post that you're quoting, since half of the sentences were incomprehensible - which was annoying since he just insulted me for being dumb and not understanding the concepts. >.> In any case, the abstract game theory concepts that he kept relating things to could also be described in layman's terms, instead of jargon, so I don't feel too bad about it. It's his responsibility to make his writing accessible to the people he is responding to. I apologize as you seem to be quite reasonable, and I'm not trying to make anyone feel this way; I was being rather specific there actually, as that point is one of the more important ones so if there's something you don't understand in particular I don't mind mapping it out for you; sciences involving abstractions like game design tend to be involve higher level language when communicating more advanced concepts like the fundamental relationship of in-game (meta) laws and governing laws because the strategy genre, in it's simplest form, is a scaling of real-world mental logistics (problem solving) and situations; for example this is why all games involving some form of physical area simulation also involve Euclidean geometry making some meta (in-game) laws (such strategic attenuation) subject to the authority of this specific higher level governing rule. This kind of higher level↔meta level relationship is not only observable in the instance of RTS games involving physical area simulation (which not incidentally happens to be about all of them), and is why things certain things are healthy to the genre (such as a proper implementation of positional play), as core RTS concepts (which indirectly influence which higher level (real world) laws apply because of the concept implementation stage) will always be the same or similar (and if not then you violate the definition of the genre such as CnC 4 being properly defined as RTT and not RTS) meaning that meta-laws are not all arbitrary despite what intuition would incline you to believe. This is why positional play being valuable for the game is not subjective.
(I also advise you not to make the same mistake as Big J and confuse meta-level RTS tactics being governed by higher level game theory in the context of the study of decision making, and meta-level RTS tactics being equated to being a specific property of that higher level theory as these are strictly and absolutely different things — in any case that was all a bit brief but I posted a bit more about it on the last page.)
As a scientist, if someone asks me a question about my field I will answer it in a way that they will understand. I can do that because I have a good understanding of what is really going on, so I know what basic knowledge is important. Basically, I want the other people to understand the answer to the question so I explain it to them in a way that is still correct, but understandable. What you are doing, is answering questions intentionally in a way such that no one can understand what you are saying. That doesn't promote discussion, and as someone who has answered a lot of questions to people at different levels (from junior high school to college level), answering questions with jargon is the fastest way for people to not believe anything you say. If you truly know what you are talking about, and you understand the concepts, you don't need to hide behind technical words. Attack the argument; not the person. Know that such a juvenile tactic isn't going to work. Simply because you don't understand even the reiterated version I've posted for Grumbels doesn't mean it's invalid especially considering there's no specialized jargon in there whatsoever. Until you can come up with a proper rebuttal this is your loss. Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 12:29 convention wrote:And yes, positional play being valuable is actually completely subjective, you cannot prove that at all. False, as a plain statement made without a supporting argument is automatically invalid. See above — I've gone explicitly gone over this.
It's not an attack, it's advice. I'm telling you no one will even bother reading your post because it has so much (made-up) jargon that it isn't readable. For example "meta-level RTS tactics being equated to being a specific property of that higher level theory as these are strictly and absolutely different things" is not even a logical sentence. You repeatedly say that these things are governed by higher level game theory. Please tell me what higher level game theory governs it. You say things are healthy because they follow those rules. You still don't say what rules besides that they are higher level. You talk about "higher level↔meta level relationship" without even explaining what that is suppose to mean. BigJ pointed to a standard game theory book and you act like he is just saying "read obscure book X". No, he is asking if you have heard of a standard book. It's like if someone claimed they knew something about higher level E&M and I asked if they've read Griffiths. It's the standard book that every school in the world will either use or reference at some point. And honestly, if someone didn't know what Griffiths E&M, I would immediately know they actually have no knowledge of E&M.
|
Quite frankly I think Demigod works for a company that produces 'high-end' audio cables (for audiophiles). Since his tactics look quite similar to what they use: They try to bury you under jargon, trying to make you feel stupid, since if they use so many jargon they surely know alot about it, right? But then in the end you realize they are pretty much trying to bury you under words with little meaning behind them.
Convention is absolutely right, if you cannot explain your arguments to others they are fairly useless in a discussion. Being explain to others* what you do is one of the most important skills to have in any scientific field, if you aren't just trolling you are clearly lacking that skill.
* Yes that includes others who aren't at your 'level' on the relevant subject.
Btw I am a fan of positional play, just not of Demigod's posts.
|
On May 04 2013 10:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:
As for Big J I am done responding to him, as he seems to be in the state where he's collapsing under the weight of his own name-calling (his latest "rebuttal" seems to be asserting I've never read books on X, which of course, is unknowable and a childish remark), confirmation bias, and repeat refusal to acknowledge counter-evidence.
Anyone who has a clue about math (and I mean real math, not the school stuff) knows from your responses, that you have absolutly never been in touch with the mathematically, scientific field of game theory. Else you would know that you have to define terms such as "tactics" in a mathematical sense.
For name-calling. I haven't done any in my posts. The real reason why you are not responding anymore is that you just cannot without the scientific background that you would need to stay on topic.
|
On May 03 2013 20:10 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:
The wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it. Currently there are two ways to win in SC2: 1. Harrass your opponent to death until you can make it clear to them by pushing with a superior army. 2. Dance two equally big armies around each other until one of the players blinks and the other one pounces and wins. What would be so terrible about having another way to play the game? The way you make it sound is just a spiteful "mehehe ... you BW lovers dont get what you want because SC2 is a new game and should not have crappy old strategies in it". That is a stupid reason ... Give me a valid reason why there should not be another valid strategy in the game. The tools to counter a siege line are already in the game (Viper-abduct and Tempests), so its your turn now to argue the point. Not everyone loves speed and bigger and bigger battles above all. Carefully planning your defenses and then striking from there should be possible. Sadly it isnt atm and that is a loss for a strategy game (which SC2 isnt really IMO ... it is more an action-resource-management game).
I'm not denying that it would be nice to have other and viable play styles. That much is obvious. Heck, I could say the same about Toss. It would be lovely to just go gateway only (+ gateway specific upgrades) for Protoss, or maybe just go SkyToss easily without having to figure out a way to get there, and then to make it an effective play style. But, it's not up to Blizzard to make that possible, as that task may well be impossible given the demands of having a viable and balanced game.
In BW, Mech was the way of playing TvP. I don't believe cries for Bio were seriously considered. The only reason the opposite cry is now heard is because of that BW inheritance where suddenly two complete play styles and their inter-mixes are demanded for the sake of variety, fun etc. If this inheritance was not there, it may be that these cries would still be heard, but not with the same degree of insistence I have come to hear over the last 3 years. Now, it may be that I am exaggerating the demand and the nature of the demand, but you (and others in this thread) may get what I mean, I hope.
SC2 is not BW. To add another obvious point, things happen fast in this game, very fast, and it is riddled with hard counters (and for Terran a unit that is as good as a tank and is faster and can be healed and dropped but without siege: The Marauder) and marked by extreme mobility. HOTS seems to have added yet more counters in Vipers, Tempests and Speedvacs. To make 'proper' mech work in the way it did in BW does seem, to me, a wet dream in this context. Now, it may be that in time HOTS will come to see bio-mech compositions that add that further diversity and variety. If so, well and good. But, I don't believe Blizzard should heed the calls of Mech from players and fans, because I do not think it is workable, in its prior BW incarnation, in SC2. To do so would be foolish given the difficulty of making not just a good game, but making a good and balanced game. The bio-mech development will come from players, as it should. And this will be fun and good.
@ Demi: You come off as a condescending prat, mate. You may or may not know what you are talking about, and you may or may not have a point. But, nothing you've tried to say indicates it is worthwhile bothering to wade through your babble.
|
On May 04 2013 16:07 Sissors wrote:
Quite frankly I think Demigod works for a company that produces 'high-end' audio cables (for audiophiles). Since his tactics look quite similar to what they use: They try to burrow you under jargon, trying to make you feel stupid, since if they use so many jargon they surely know alot about it, right? But then in the end you realize they are pretty much trying to burrow you under words with little meaning behind them.
Convention is absolutely right, if you cannot explain your arguments to others they are fairly useless in a discussion. Being explain to others* what you do is one of the most important skills to have in any scientific field, if you aren't just trolling you are clearly lacking that skill.
* Yes that includes others who aren't at your 'level' on the relevant subject.
Btw I am a fan of positional play, just not of Demigod's posts.
This might be pedantic, but since we're focusing on language and clarity, the word you're looking for is bury, not burrow. Burrow implies self-induced or self-made like a gopher making his burrow (bur-row), while bury (bare-ree) is a very deliberate action onto another, like burying the dead body.
|
accidental post - deleted
|
On May 04 2013 17:58 Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 16:07 Sissors wrote:
Quite frankly I think Demigod works for a company that produces 'high-end' audio cables (for audiophiles). Since his tactics look quite similar to what they use: They try to burrow you under jargon, trying to make you feel stupid, since if they use so many jargon they surely know alot about it, right? But then in the end you realize they are pretty much trying to burrow you under words with little meaning behind them.
Convention is absolutely right, if you cannot explain your arguments to others they are fairly useless in a discussion. Being explain to others* what you do is one of the most important skills to have in any scientific field, if you aren't just trolling you are clearly lacking that skill.
* Yes that includes others who aren't at your 'level' on the relevant subject.
Btw I am a fan of positional play, just not of Demigod's posts. This might be pedantic, but since we're focusing on language and clarity, the word you're looking for is bury, not burrow. Burrow implies self-induced or self-made like a gopher making his burrow (bur-row), while bury (bare-ree) is a very deliberate action onto another, like burying the dead body.
I've been following this discussion with a lot of interest now (I seem to have found a bit of a masochistic streak), but you must honestly admit that this small semantic oversight is probably merely Starcraft-related and says absolutely nothing about the poster's argument.
|
On May 04 2013 17:58 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:10 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:
The wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it. Currently there are two ways to win in SC2: 1. Harrass your opponent to death until you can make it clear to them by pushing with a superior army. 2. Dance two equally big armies around each other until one of the players blinks and the other one pounces and wins. What would be so terrible about having another way to play the game? The way you make it sound is just a spiteful "mehehe ... you BW lovers dont get what you want because SC2 is a new game and should not have crappy old strategies in it". That is a stupid reason ... Give me a valid reason why there should not be another valid strategy in the game. The tools to counter a siege line are already in the game (Viper-abduct and Tempests), so its your turn now to argue the point. Not everyone loves speed and bigger and bigger battles above all. Carefully planning your defenses and then striking from there should be possible. Sadly it isnt atm and that is a loss for a strategy game (which SC2 isnt really IMO ... it is more an action-resource-management game). I'm not denying that it would be nice to have other and viable play styles. That much is obvious. Heck, I could say the same about Toss. It would be lovely to just go gateway only (+ gateway specific upgrades) for Protoss, or maybe just go SkyToss easily without having to figure out a way to get there, and then to make it an effective play style. But, it's not up to Blizzard to make that possible, as that task may well be impossible given the demands of having a viable and balanced game. In BW, Mech was the way of playing TvP. I don't believe cries for Bio were seriously considered. The only reason the opposite cry is now heard is because of that BW inheritance where suddenly two complete play styles and their inter-mixes are demanded for the sake of variety, fun etc. If this inheritance was not there, it may be that these cries would still be heard, but not with the same degree of insistence I have come to hear over the last 3 years. Now, it may be that I am exaggerating the demand and the nature of the demand, but you (and others in this thread) may get what I mean, I hope. SC2 is not BW. To add another obvious point, things happen fast in this game, very fast, and it is riddled with hard counters (and for Terran a unit that is as good as a tank and is faster and can be healed and dropped but without siege: The Marauder) and marked by extreme mobility. HOTS seems to have added yet more counters in Vipers, Tempests and Speedvacs. To make 'proper' mech work in the way it did in BW does seem, to me, a wet dream in this context. Now, it may be that in time HOTS will come to see bio-mech compositions that add that further diversity and variety. If so, well and good. But, I don't believe Blizzard should heed the calls of Mech from players and fans, because I do not think it is workable, in its prior BW incarnation, in SC2. To do so would be foolish given the difficulty of making not just a good game, but making a good and balanced game. The bio-mech development will come from players, as it should. And this will be fun and good. @ Demi: You come off as a condescending prat, mate. You may or may not know what you are talking about, and you may or may not have a point. But, nothing you've tried to say indicates it is worthwhile bothering to wade through your babble.
that's because 1) BW achieved a very tight balance and 2) buffing bio would make stuff like deep 6 and SK terran overpowered, where they were already viable.
sc2 is now redoing the balance again, so we don't have to worry about point 1. mech is also consistently awful in every match. sure, it's most awful vs P, but in general you wouldn't get anywhere without bio play. sc2 terran = bio, and that's boring.
|
On May 04 2013 22:21 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 17:58 aZealot wrote:On May 03 2013 20:10 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote:
The wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it. Currently there are two ways to win in SC2: 1. Harrass your opponent to death until you can make it clear to them by pushing with a superior army. 2. Dance two equally big armies around each other until one of the players blinks and the other one pounces and wins. What would be so terrible about having another way to play the game? The way you make it sound is just a spiteful "mehehe ... you BW lovers dont get what you want because SC2 is a new game and should not have crappy old strategies in it". That is a stupid reason ... Give me a valid reason why there should not be another valid strategy in the game. The tools to counter a siege line are already in the game (Viper-abduct and Tempests), so its your turn now to argue the point. Not everyone loves speed and bigger and bigger battles above all. Carefully planning your defenses and then striking from there should be possible. Sadly it isnt atm and that is a loss for a strategy game (which SC2 isnt really IMO ... it is more an action-resource-management game). I'm not denying that it would be nice to have other and viable play styles. That much is obvious. Heck, I could say the same about Toss. It would be lovely to just go gateway only (+ gateway specific upgrades) for Protoss, or maybe just go SkyToss easily without having to figure out a way to get there, and then to make it an effective play style. But, it's not up to Blizzard to make that possible, as that task may well be impossible given the demands of having a viable and balanced game. In BW, Mech was the way of playing TvP. I don't believe cries for Bio were seriously considered. The only reason the opposite cry is now heard is because of that BW inheritance where suddenly two complete play styles and their inter-mixes are demanded for the sake of variety, fun etc. If this inheritance was not there, it may be that these cries would still be heard, but not with the same degree of insistence I have come to hear over the last 3 years. Now, it may be that I am exaggerating the demand and the nature of the demand, but you (and others in this thread) may get what I mean, I hope. SC2 is not BW. To add another obvious point, things happen fast in this game, very fast, and it is riddled with hard counters (and for Terran a unit that is as good as a tank and is faster and can be healed and dropped but without siege: The Marauder) and marked by extreme mobility. HOTS seems to have added yet more counters in Vipers, Tempests and Speedvacs. To make 'proper' mech work in the way it did in BW does seem, to me, a wet dream in this context. Now, it may be that in time HOTS will come to see bio-mech compositions that add that further diversity and variety. If so, well and good. But, I don't believe Blizzard should heed the calls of Mech from players and fans, because I do not think it is workable, in its prior BW incarnation, in SC2. To do so would be foolish given the difficulty of making not just a good game, but making a good and balanced game. The bio-mech development will come from players, as it should. And this will be fun and good. @ Demi: You come off as a condescending prat, mate. You may or may not know what you are talking about, and you may or may not have a point. But, nothing you've tried to say indicates it is worthwhile bothering to wade through your babble. that's because 1) BW achieved a very tight balance and 2) buffing bio would make stuff like deep 6 and SK terran overpowered, where they were already viable. sc2 is now redoing the balance again, so we don't have to worry about point 1. mech is also consistently awful in every match. sure, it's most awful vs P, but in general you wouldn't get anywhere without bio play. sc2 terran = bio, and that's boring.
that's not true. In TvT pure mech or very tank heavy biomech (like 2-3factories for tanks exclusively) is the norm. And in TvZ it looks borderline playable and a lot of mech being not so popular comes simply from how comfortable - because predictable - the game is for the Terran player when using bio. It's like, if you play bio you know he is going to go for ling/bling in the midgame where he has like one allinish timing then has to turtle to ultras/infestors or on a few maps he may go broodlords. And he either has to invest heavily into defense or heavily into defensive mutas.
On the flipside if you play mech, a zerg can do all kind of shit to you, starting from heavy roach or roach/hydra play to swarm hosts to drops to Ultralisks or Broodlords or one of those mass mutalisk surprises and the Viper being a kind of a wildcard that just shits on you for overdoing the right thing. And half of that in aggressive or defensive variations that can hit anytime.
(Though I still would like to see a slight blinding cloud nerf against siege tanks)
|
On May 04 2013 20:59 dejavue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 17:58 Cloak wrote:On May 04 2013 16:07 Sissors wrote:
Quite frankly I think Demigod works for a company that produces 'high-end' audio cables (for audiophiles). Since his tactics look quite similar to what they use: They try to burrow you under jargon, trying to make you feel stupid, since if they use so many jargon they surely know alot about it, right? But then in the end you realize they are pretty much trying to burrow you under words with little meaning behind them.
Convention is absolutely right, if you cannot explain your arguments to others they are fairly useless in a discussion. Being explain to others* what you do is one of the most important skills to have in any scientific field, if you aren't just trolling you are clearly lacking that skill.
* Yes that includes others who aren't at your 'level' on the relevant subject.
Btw I am a fan of positional play, just not of Demigod's posts. This might be pedantic, but since we're focusing on language and clarity, the word you're looking for is bury, not burrow. Burrow implies self-induced or self-made like a gopher making his burrow (bur-row), while bury (bare-ree) is a very deliberate action onto another, like burying the dead body. I've been following this discussion with a lot of interest now (I seem to have found a bit of a masochistic streak), but you must honestly admit that this small semantic oversight is probably merely Starcraft-related and says absolutely nothing about the poster's argument.
Yep that was just my English not being perfect, and probably due to using English quite a bit SC2 related I used the wrong word. @Cloak, I corrected it now, thanks for pointing that out, a mistake I probably won't make again  . But as dejavue said, I don't think it really matters for the argument.
|
hellbat nerf: don't get healed by medivacs anymore
and what i would love to see is: unranked play + choose opponent's race. this makes practice even better (which unranked is for)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
