|
On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:32 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:07 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:
I apologize for letting facts come in the way of the narrative, I shall never do that again in the future. Yeah sure. Break out the Sad Zealot champagne. Fact is that we have to let the new changes play out. You want to call it 'balanced' for your own purposes. Let's not be hasty in either direction yeah? I get that you have problems with me but it's getting kind of pathetic there. The narrative I'm talking against is "these stats happen because the very best terrans play good or great (but not the best) protosses, so that's why terran looks ok". I'm answering: "Actually you're wrong, we have plenty of games from people who are not the very best terrans and do decently vs protoss, so it suggests balance". The narrative used to explain the aligulac statistics isn't supported by reality. That's all I'm saying. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. I just mean what I mean: this narrative is wrong. I have a problem with people being hasty in either direction. My problem with Protoss is their openings. Jim 4gated Jaedong - like really? How many openings can Zergs and Terrans throw at Protoss that catches them off guard like that? If that means making Protoss mid-game stronger to compensate, I'm all for it. When I see a Terran beat a Protoss, it's usually because they took good engagements, dropped, harassed and outplayed their opponents. And I enjoy it when Protoss gut open Zergs with warp prism harass and good engagements etc. as well. You know, outplaying their opponent. And using unusual openers is good to mix it up, but unusual opener is standard for Protoss. Proxy oracle should be a risk and a gamble since it can straight up kill Terrans, not a safe opener. ...and every single part of that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against. On June 01 2014 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2014 21:09 Hider wrote:On May 29 2014 03:03 DinoMight wrote:
So from these numbers looks like Z>T>P right now eh? No. Z > P Z > T TvP ???? This is due to how significantly terran is underpresented --> superior terran players are still being matched up against inferior toss's/zergs. This means that terran is supposed to have win/rates above 50% against Protoss/Zerg if the game is balanced. But terrans have also recently upset protosses that you would expect to be favourites over them, so that suggests a rather balanced state. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. So? I stand by my statements. Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain?
You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it.
|
On June 01 2014 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:32 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:07 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:
I apologize for letting facts come in the way of the narrative, I shall never do that again in the future. Yeah sure. Break out the Sad Zealot champagne. Fact is that we have to let the new changes play out. You want to call it 'balanced' for your own purposes. Let's not be hasty in either direction yeah? I get that you have problems with me but it's getting kind of pathetic there. The narrative I'm talking against is "these stats happen because the very best terrans play good or great (but not the best) protosses, so that's why terran looks ok". I'm answering: "Actually you're wrong, we have plenty of games from people who are not the very best terrans and do decently vs protoss, so it suggests balance". The narrative used to explain the aligulac statistics isn't supported by reality. That's all I'm saying. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. I just mean what I mean: this narrative is wrong. I have a problem with people being hasty in either direction. My problem with Protoss is their openings. Jim 4gated Jaedong - like really? How many openings can Zergs and Terrans throw at Protoss that catches them off guard like that? If that means making Protoss mid-game stronger to compensate, I'm all for it. When I see a Terran beat a Protoss, it's usually because they took good engagements, dropped, harassed and outplayed their opponents. And I enjoy it when Protoss gut open Zergs with warp prism harass and good engagements etc. as well. You know, outplaying their opponent. And using unusual openers is good to mix it up, but unusual opener is standard for Protoss. Proxy oracle should be a risk and a gamble since it can straight up kill Terrans, not a safe opener. ...and every single part of that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against. On June 01 2014 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2014 21:09 Hider wrote:On May 29 2014 03:03 DinoMight wrote:
So from these numbers looks like Z>T>P right now eh? No. Z > P Z > T TvP ???? This is due to how significantly terran is underpresented --> superior terran players are still being matched up against inferior toss's/zergs. This means that terran is supposed to have win/rates above 50% against Protoss/Zerg if the game is balanced. But terrans have also recently upset protosses that you would expect to be favourites over them, so that suggests a rather balanced state. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. So? I stand by my statements. Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain? You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it.
You seem to take things very personally. I'm calling out weasel arguments - whether you or anyone else. That's all. "Suggests balance". Pfah.
|
On June 01 2014 05:45 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:32 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:07 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:
I apologize for letting facts come in the way of the narrative, I shall never do that again in the future. Yeah sure. Break out the Sad Zealot champagne. Fact is that we have to let the new changes play out. You want to call it 'balanced' for your own purposes. Let's not be hasty in either direction yeah? I get that you have problems with me but it's getting kind of pathetic there. The narrative I'm talking against is "these stats happen because the very best terrans play good or great (but not the best) protosses, so that's why terran looks ok". I'm answering: "Actually you're wrong, we have plenty of games from people who are not the very best terrans and do decently vs protoss, so it suggests balance". The narrative used to explain the aligulac statistics isn't supported by reality. That's all I'm saying. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. I just mean what I mean: this narrative is wrong. I have a problem with people being hasty in either direction. My problem with Protoss is their openings. Jim 4gated Jaedong - like really? How many openings can Zergs and Terrans throw at Protoss that catches them off guard like that? If that means making Protoss mid-game stronger to compensate, I'm all for it. When I see a Terran beat a Protoss, it's usually because they took good engagements, dropped, harassed and outplayed their opponents. And I enjoy it when Protoss gut open Zergs with warp prism harass and good engagements etc. as well. You know, outplaying their opponent. And using unusual openers is good to mix it up, but unusual opener is standard for Protoss. Proxy oracle should be a risk and a gamble since it can straight up kill Terrans, not a safe opener. ...and every single part of that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against. On June 01 2014 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2014 21:09 Hider wrote:On May 29 2014 03:03 DinoMight wrote:
So from these numbers looks like Z>T>P right now eh? No. Z > P Z > T TvP ???? This is due to how significantly terran is underpresented --> superior terran players are still being matched up against inferior toss's/zergs. This means that terran is supposed to have win/rates above 50% against Protoss/Zerg if the game is balanced. But terrans have also recently upset protosses that you would expect to be favourites over them, so that suggests a rather balanced state. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. So? I stand by my statements. Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain? You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it. You seem to take things very personally. I'm calling out weasel arguments - whether you or anyone else. That's all. "Suggests balance". Pfah.
I tend to take things very personnally? Don't you think that it could be connected to you targeting me on a personal level?
Hider's claim: "PvT stats look balanced, but we can't trust them because it's the very best terrans beating not the very best protoss"
My claim: "Your reasoning for not trusting the stats is wrong, therefore we're back to "PvT stats look balanced""
Your "claim": "Wow you're so hasty and biased and btw openings and midgame and design and other completely irrelevant things, let me not talk about what you're talking about and claim you're weaseling out of the argument"
|
On June 01 2014 05:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 05:45 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:32 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:07 plogamer wrote:
[quote]
Yeah sure. Break out the Sad Zealot champagne. Fact is that we have to let the new changes play out. You want to call it 'balanced' for your own purposes. Let's not be hasty in either direction yeah? I get that you have problems with me but it's getting kind of pathetic there. The narrative I'm talking against is "these stats happen because the very best terrans play good or great (but not the best) protosses, so that's why terran looks ok". I'm answering: "Actually you're wrong, we have plenty of games from people who are not the very best terrans and do decently vs protoss, so it suggests balance". The narrative used to explain the aligulac statistics isn't supported by reality. That's all I'm saying. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. I just mean what I mean: this narrative is wrong. I have a problem with people being hasty in either direction. My problem with Protoss is their openings. Jim 4gated Jaedong - like really? How many openings can Zergs and Terrans throw at Protoss that catches them off guard like that? If that means making Protoss mid-game stronger to compensate, I'm all for it. When I see a Terran beat a Protoss, it's usually because they took good engagements, dropped, harassed and outplayed their opponents. And I enjoy it when Protoss gut open Zergs with warp prism harass and good engagements etc. as well. You know, outplaying their opponent. And using unusual openers is good to mix it up, but unusual opener is standard for Protoss. Proxy oracle should be a risk and a gamble since it can straight up kill Terrans, not a safe opener. ...and every single part of that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against. On June 01 2014 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2014 21:09 Hider wrote:On May 29 2014 03:03 DinoMight wrote:
So from these numbers looks like Z>T>P right now eh? No. Z > P Z > T TvP ???? This is due to how significantly terran is underpresented --> superior terran players are still being matched up against inferior toss's/zergs. This means that terran is supposed to have win/rates above 50% against Protoss/Zerg if the game is balanced. But terrans have also recently upset protosses that you would expect to be favourites over them, so that suggests a rather balanced state. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. So? I stand by my statements. Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain? You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it. You seem to take things very personally. I'm calling out weasel arguments - whether you or anyone else. That's all. "Suggests balance". Pfah. I tend to take things very personnally? Don't you think that it could be connected to you targeting me on a personal level? Hider's claim: "PvT stats look balanced, but we can't trust them because it's the very best terrans beating not the very best protoss" My claim: "Your reasoning for not trusting the stats is wrong, therefore we're back to "PvT stats look balanced"" Your "claim": "Wow you're so hasty and biased and btw openings and midgame and design and other completely irrelevant things, let me not talk about what you're talking about and claim you're weaseling out of the argument"
Whoa there. Let's not change your premise that Terrans taking out "favoured" Protoss suggests balance.
Anyway, my first reply to that post was:
Yeah sure. Break out the Sad Zealot champagne. Fact is that we have to let the new changes play out. You want to call it 'balanced' for your own purposes. Let's not be hasty in either direction yeah?
No where did I suggest you were having 'arguments in your head' like you did to me. Whatever that implies.
Since you refuse to talk about anything other than the points you raise. Foreign to Korean skill gap is in flux. Dayshi beat MMA. Last season's champion in WCS EU, I think.
That's why I speak about the problem of Protoss opening. It's a fundamental balance issue. But no, you didn't raise the point so it's a non-issue.
|
On June 01 2014 05:53 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 05:50 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:45 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:32 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I get that you have problems with me but it's getting kind of pathetic there. The narrative I'm talking against is "these stats happen because the very best terrans play good or great (but not the best) protosses, so that's why terran looks ok". I'm answering: "Actually you're wrong, we have plenty of games from people who are not the very best terrans and do decently vs protoss, so it suggests balance".
The narrative used to explain the aligulac statistics isn't supported by reality. That's all I'm saying. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. I just mean what I mean: this narrative is wrong. I have a problem with people being hasty in either direction. My problem with Protoss is their openings. Jim 4gated Jaedong - like really? How many openings can Zergs and Terrans throw at Protoss that catches them off guard like that? If that means making Protoss mid-game stronger to compensate, I'm all for it. When I see a Terran beat a Protoss, it's usually because they took good engagements, dropped, harassed and outplayed their opponents. And I enjoy it when Protoss gut open Zergs with warp prism harass and good engagements etc. as well. You know, outplaying their opponent. And using unusual openers is good to mix it up, but unusual opener is standard for Protoss. Proxy oracle should be a risk and a gamble since it can straight up kill Terrans, not a safe opener. ...and every single part of that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against. On June 01 2014 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2014 21:09 Hider wrote:On May 29 2014 03:03 DinoMight wrote:
So from these numbers looks like Z>T>P right now eh? No. Z > P Z > T TvP ???? This is due to how significantly terran is underpresented --> superior terran players are still being matched up against inferior toss's/zergs. This means that terran is supposed to have win/rates above 50% against Protoss/Zerg if the game is balanced. But terrans have also recently upset protosses that you would expect to be favourites over them, so that suggests a rather balanced state. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. So? I stand by my statements. Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain? You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it. You seem to take things very personally. I'm calling out weasel arguments - whether you or anyone else. That's all. "Suggests balance". Pfah. I tend to take things very personnally? Don't you think that it could be connected to you targeting me on a personal level? Hider's claim: "PvT stats look balanced, but we can't trust them because it's the very best terrans beating not the very best protoss" My claim: "Your reasoning for not trusting the stats is wrong, therefore we're back to "PvT stats look balanced"" Your "claim": "Wow you're so hasty and biased and btw openings and midgame and design and other completely irrelevant things, let me not talk about what you're talking about and claim you're weaseling out of the argument" Whoa there. Let's not change your premise that Terrans taking "favoured" Protoss suggests balance.
I didn't take it out...
"No where did I suggest you were having 'arguments in your head' like you did to me. Whatever that implies."
I'm fine with that, I don't think I'm having arguments in my head either. Can't say the same about you though.
We should probably go to PM if you still want to talk, I'm fine with not doing it though.
|
On June 01 2014 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 05:53 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:50 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:45 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:32 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:
[quote]
I have a problem with people being hasty in either direction.
My problem with Protoss is their openings. Jim 4gated Jaedong - like really? How many openings can Zergs and Terrans throw at Protoss that catches them off guard like that? If that means making Protoss mid-game stronger to compensate, I'm all for it.
When I see a Terran beat a Protoss, it's usually because they took good engagements, dropped, harassed and outplayed their opponents. And I enjoy it when Protoss gut open Zergs with warp prism harass and good engagements etc. as well. You know, outplaying their opponent.
And using unusual openers is good to mix it up, but unusual opener is standard for Protoss. Proxy oracle should be a risk and a gamble since it can straight up kill Terrans, not a safe opener. ...and every single part of that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against. On June 01 2014 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2014 21:09 Hider wrote:
[quote]
No.
Z > P
Z > T
TvP ????
This is due to how significantly terran is underpresented --> superior terran players are still being matched up against inferior toss's/zergs. This means that terran is supposed to have win/rates above 50% against Protoss/Zerg if the game is balanced. But terrans have also recently upset protosses that you would expect to be favourites over them, so that suggests a rather balanced state. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. So? I stand by my statements. Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain? You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it. You seem to take things very personally. I'm calling out weasel arguments - whether you or anyone else. That's all. "Suggests balance". Pfah. I tend to take things very personnally? Don't you think that it could be connected to you targeting me on a personal level? Hider's claim: "PvT stats look balanced, but we can't trust them because it's the very best terrans beating not the very best protoss" My claim: "Your reasoning for not trusting the stats is wrong, therefore we're back to "PvT stats look balanced"" Your "claim": "Wow you're so hasty and biased and btw openings and midgame and design and other completely irrelevant things, let me not talk about what you're talking about and claim you're weaseling out of the argument" Whoa there. Let's not change your premise that Terrans taking "favoured" Protoss suggests balance. I didn't take it out... "No where did I suggest you were having 'arguments in your head' like you did to me. Whatever that implies." I'm fine with that, I don't think I'm having arguments in my head either. Can't say the same about you though.
Again, so personal. Let me know when you have something to say on whether foreign to korean skill gap is in flux or not. Otherwise, let's not waste everyone else's time.
|
beside all the balance discussion i really wish they would buff neural parasite to something like range 9-11 or so. man, that would spice up the game...
|
On June 01 2014 06:00 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:53 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:50 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:45 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:32 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
...and every single part of that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against. On June 01 2014 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
But terrans have also recently upset protosses that you would expect to be favourites over them, so that suggests a rather balanced state. That has nothing to do with whether PvT will be balanced or not in two months, no one can say that. So? I stand by my statements. Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain? You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it. You seem to take things very personally. I'm calling out weasel arguments - whether you or anyone else. That's all. "Suggests balance". Pfah. I tend to take things very personnally? Don't you think that it could be connected to you targeting me on a personal level? Hider's claim: "PvT stats look balanced, but we can't trust them because it's the very best terrans beating not the very best protoss" My claim: "Your reasoning for not trusting the stats is wrong, therefore we're back to "PvT stats look balanced"" Your "claim": "Wow you're so hasty and biased and btw openings and midgame and design and other completely irrelevant things, let me not talk about what you're talking about and claim you're weaseling out of the argument" Whoa there. Let's not change your premise that Terrans taking "favoured" Protoss suggests balance. I didn't take it out... "No where did I suggest you were having 'arguments in your head' like you did to me. Whatever that implies." I'm fine with that, I don't think I'm having arguments in my head either. Can't say the same about you though. Again, so personal. Let me know when you have something to say on whether foreign to korean skill gap is in flux or not. Otherwise, let's not waste everyone else's time.
Yeah, I agree that foreigners are doing better than they used to, I don't have a problem with that. The better koreans are still the favourite, as demonstrated pretty clearly everywhere. Notice how I put Revenge beating HasuObs in my upset list, I don't glorify Korea, I just selected the most obvious upsets.
|
On June 01 2014 06:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 06:00 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:53 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:50 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:45 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:32 plogamer wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
So? I stand by my statements. Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain? You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it. You seem to take things very personally. I'm calling out weasel arguments - whether you or anyone else. That's all. "Suggests balance". Pfah. I tend to take things very personnally? Don't you think that it could be connected to you targeting me on a personal level? Hider's claim: "PvT stats look balanced, but we can't trust them because it's the very best terrans beating not the very best protoss" My claim: "Your reasoning for not trusting the stats is wrong, therefore we're back to "PvT stats look balanced"" Your "claim": "Wow you're so hasty and biased and btw openings and midgame and design and other completely irrelevant things, let me not talk about what you're talking about and claim you're weaseling out of the argument" Whoa there. Let's not change your premise that Terrans taking "favoured" Protoss suggests balance. I didn't take it out... "No where did I suggest you were having 'arguments in your head' like you did to me. Whatever that implies." I'm fine with that, I don't think I'm having arguments in my head either. Can't say the same about you though. Again, so personal. Let me know when you have something to say on whether foreign to korean skill gap is in flux or not. Otherwise, let's not waste everyone else's time. Yeah, I agree that foreigners are doing better than they used to, I don't have a problem with that. The better koreans are still the favourite, as demonstrated pretty clearly everywhere. Notice how I put Revenge beating HasuObs in my upset list, I don't glorify Korea, I just selected the most obvious upsets.
problem is, there are maybe 1 or 2 upsets, the rest are no upsets at all, thus not reflecting any change in recent tvp
please, don't get us started on "upsets" that happended to top terran players, the list will fill the next 1000 pages sadly
|
On June 01 2014 06:22 Kitaen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 06:13 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 06:00 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:53 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:50 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:45 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 05:36 plogamer wrote:On June 01 2014 05:33 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
So? I stand by my statements.
Are you serious? You think hiding behind weasle words like "suggests balance" actually works on anyone with a working brain? You seem to have debates in your own mind whenever we talk. My position is quite clear, I don't see the point in reiterating it. You seem to take things very personally. I'm calling out weasel arguments - whether you or anyone else. That's all. "Suggests balance". Pfah. I tend to take things very personnally? Don't you think that it could be connected to you targeting me on a personal level? Hider's claim: "PvT stats look balanced, but we can't trust them because it's the very best terrans beating not the very best protoss" My claim: "Your reasoning for not trusting the stats is wrong, therefore we're back to "PvT stats look balanced"" Your "claim": "Wow you're so hasty and biased and btw openings and midgame and design and other completely irrelevant things, let me not talk about what you're talking about and claim you're weaseling out of the argument" Whoa there. Let's not change your premise that Terrans taking "favoured" Protoss suggests balance. I didn't take it out... "No where did I suggest you were having 'arguments in your head' like you did to me. Whatever that implies." I'm fine with that, I don't think I'm having arguments in my head either. Can't say the same about you though. Again, so personal. Let me know when you have something to say on whether foreign to korean skill gap is in flux or not. Otherwise, let's not waste everyone else's time. Yeah, I agree that foreigners are doing better than they used to, I don't have a problem with that. The better koreans are still the favourite, as demonstrated pretty clearly everywhere. Notice how I put Revenge beating HasuObs in my upset list, I don't glorify Korea, I just selected the most obvious upsets. please, don't get us started on "upsets" that happended to top terran players, the list will fill the next 1000 pages sadly
I won't get you started then, I will just finish it for you, for the same time period. Making the list I noticed I had missed two results for the other list, so that's fine. Also deleted Dwf vs Tod cause Faust was probably right.
Has beat ForGG
MacSed beat ForGG
Probe beat Heart
Harstem beat jjakji
herO beat Innovation
Tod beat Mvp
Welmu beat ForGG
Welmu beat ForGG
San beat Innovation
Harstem beat jjakji (again)
Harstem beat Bunny
Classic beat Bbyong
Patience beat jjakji
Hush beat Cure
San beat Taeja
San beat Taeja
Mana beat Center
|
Nebuchad, what are you on about? Those lists are so incredibly eclectic that I don't know which way to look at them. And you don't even offer any analysis of what can actually be deduced from them.
|
On June 01 2014 07:01 Ghanburighan wrote:
Nebuchad, what are you on about? Those lists are so incredibly eclectic that I don't know which way to look at them. And you don't even offer any analysis of what can actually be deduced from them.
How are they ecclectic? Be my guest and compile a better list if you want...
My point in posting the first one, I think I've explained enough.
My point in posting the second one, well, the point was brought up by Kitaen, so you'd have to ask him what the point is.
|
Just count tournament winners and race distribution in the top 16s, and current balance should be pretty clear.
That being said, after practicing tvp with a master clanmate, I still have a very good tvp record in platinum league! Probably because they dont know the imba playstyles which are the hardest to deal with, muahahaha!
|
On June 01 2014 07:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 07:01 Ghanburighan wrote:
Nebuchad, what are you on about? Those lists are so incredibly eclectic that I don't know which way to look at them. And you don't even offer any analysis of what can actually be deduced from them. How are they ecclectic? Be my guest and compile a better list if you want... My point in posting the first one, I think I've explained enough. My point in posting the second one, well, the point was brought up by Kitaen, so you'd have to ask him what the point is.
Two pages of questions and criticisms suggest you haven't explained yourself well enough. The lists are basically just your subjective list with no explanation of methodology.
How did you choose what's an upset? Where did you find the games? Did you test for cross-server etc? (obviously you didn't as was pointed out) How many upsets are more than the average amount of upsets? Are there more upsets for Z or P players. It gets especially tricky when you look at Korea v Korea (although the same difficulty persists all throughout), as bad past performances suggest that the games are an upset, but if there has been a protracted period of imbalance against T (which most everyone believes there has been) then players with theoretically equal skill would be predicted to in such a relation to each other that the T player would be the underdog against P or Z. So, is that really an upset? Also, sc2 is volatile, you can drop games to players much worse than you easily. It's in protracted sets that the better player generally asserts themselves. So, what counts as an upset, dropping a game, a set of bo3, bo5, bo7, several sets? How do you factor out personal advantages (Losira has a brilliant winrate against MKP in ZvT, even during periods when MKP was beating every other Z).
But the most important question concerns what's the amount of upsets that suggests a repopulation of terrans in tournaments. Considering that the GSL had 4 T against 14 P/Z, and 2 T players in the round of 16 against 7 P/Z, this suggests that a lot of `upsets' are required to rebalance it. But I don't even know where to start to quantify such a woolly methodology.
|
On June 01 2014 07:19 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 07:06 Nebuchad wrote:On June 01 2014 07:01 Ghanburighan wrote:
Nebuchad, what are you on about? Those lists are so incredibly eclectic that I don't know which way to look at them. And you don't even offer any analysis of what can actually be deduced from them. How are they ecclectic? Be my guest and compile a better list if you want... My point in posting the first one, I think I've explained enough. My point in posting the second one, well, the point was brought up by Kitaen, so you'd have to ask him what the point is. Two pages of questions and criticisms suggest you haven't explained yourself well enough. The lists are basically just your subjective list with no explanation of methodology. How did you choose what's an upset? Where did you find the games? Did you test for cross-server etc? (obviously you didn't as was pointed out) How many upsets are more than the average amount of upsets? Are there more upsets for Z or P players. It gets especially tricky when you look at Korea v Korea (although the same difficulty persists all throughout), as bad past performances suggest that the games are an upset, but if there has been a protracted period of imbalance against T (which most everyone believes there has been) then players with theoretically equal skill would be predicted to in such a relation to each other that the T player would be the underdog against P or Z. So, is that really an upset? Also, sc2 is volatile, you can drop games to players much worse than you easily. It's in protracted sets that the better player generally asserts themselves. So, what counts as an upset, dropping a game, a set of bo3, bo5, bo7, several sets? How do you factor out personal advantages (Losira has a brilliant winrate against MKP in ZvT, even during periods when MKP was beating every other Z). But the most important question concerns what's the amount of upsets that suggests a repopulation of terrans in tournaments. Considering that the GSL had 4 T against 14 P/Z, and 2 T players in the round of 16 against 7 P/Z, this suggests that a lot of `upsets' are required to rebalance it. But I don't even know where to start to quantify such a woolly methodology.
Well you get to create your own list if you're not satisfied with my subjectivity. Maybe you should team up with rusty and Faust, I hear they are praised for their complete lack of bias.
http://aligulac.com/results/search/?search=&after=2014-05-01&before=2014-05-31&players=P
T&event=&bestof=all&offline=both&game=all&op=Search
|
At least i'm not biased enough to think that Classic beating Bbyong or Bbyong beating Parting are upsets.
|
On June 01 2014 07:52 Faust852 wrote:
At least i'm not biased enough to think that Classic beating Bbyong or Bbyong beating Parting are upsets.
I must have some interesting bias, I'm biased for P against T in one case, and then I'm biased for T against P in the other. That sounds nice.
|
What I said is that it doesn't matter whether you are biased or not. Those lists don't allow any conclusions to be made.
|
On June 01 2014 08:02 Ghanburighan wrote:
What I said is that it doesn't matter whether you are biased or not. Those lists don't allow any conclusions to be made.
The list doesn't, but the notion does. The argument is that terran players are matched against weaker opponents, so they should have better stats than 50%. The counterargument is that the terran players who win in these lists aren't necessarily perceived as better than their opponent. Upsets happen. A better argument can be made by just looking at the entire list of results and noticing that the terran players who participate aren't always the best players in the world, but it appears that ship has sailed. I suppose we should look at the results of players of similar skill for another better argument, but then we'd have to define what similar skill is and that won't happen in this thread...
|
On June 01 2014 07:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2014 07:52 Faust852 wrote:
At least i'm not biased enough to think that Classic beating Bbyong or Bbyong beating Parting are upsets.
I must have some interesting bias, I'm biased for P against T in one case, and then I'm biased for T against P in the other. That sounds nice.
I just think you don't know the pro scene well enough. You rank players too high or too low. You base all your argumentation on some BO1 of ATC, and other weird criterias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
