|
No, the burden of proof is on the other side, liquipedia just copied from the game files without doing any verification, I posted methodology and have done the tests. That puts burden on someone else to do the darn tests.
I already said the original research posts are gone because battle.net deleted the old forums.
People not paying attention to me is a perennial problem in my life and it's immensely frustrating.
None of you are willing to actually do any tests yourself, unless you're willing to actually do the tests yourself you shouldn't be gainsaying.
edit: looks like liquipedia also doesn't have the more complete details on how dark swarm works and how it interacts with burrow; or on the other units that are affected by engine preventing them from using their full cooldown.
|
On January 13 2014 04:46 Zealously wrote:You have? Does anyone else want to weigh in? What was the attack speed boost in BW? 50%, 66% or 100%?
Zealously, I've been a long time expert in this field of study, I'm glad you asked. The speed boost was 82%, you'll have to trust me on this, because I've done extensive testing on the matter, and if you don't believe me I'll just restate my expertise relentlessly unless hopefully you believe me. If it doesn't work, i'll lash out. I only post things I am 100% confident about. My word is the only evidence I'll provide, and if that's not good enough then I'm sorry I wasted my time doing my research so many years ago.
Hope the clears things up for everybody, I'm glad I can put this to rest.
|
On January 13 2014 04:17 algue wrote:
Without a stand alone version or any help from blizzard I don't think this game will get the exposure it deserves no matter how great it is.
Although I'm surprised at how much momentum it has gotten these past few days on Reddit and TL, especially with the help of TB and the Axiom-Acer crew. Keeping up this momentum will help this mod go further than previous ones, and the f2p arcade in patch 2.1 will hopefully help even more.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 13 2014 04:59 zlefin wrote:
No, the burden of proof is on the other side, liquipedia just copied from the game files without doing any verification, I posted methodology and have done the tests. That puts burden on someone else to do the darn tests.
I already said the original research posts are gone because battle.net deleted the old forums.
People not paying attention to me is a perennial problem in my life and it's immensely frustrating.
None of you are willing to actually do any tests yourself, unless you're willing to actually do the tests yourself you shouldn't be gainsaying.
I actually tested all of this myself and the attack speed boost was 42.0%. I even posted on a few forums but they were all taken down, but I'm definitely right.
When it's just word against word (and nothing more - citing posts on a deleted forum does not prove anything), people will believe in Liquipedia and Blizzard (you know, the guys who made the game) rather than a forum poster who is mostly unknown and cannot actually provide any hard evidence. If you have conducted extensive testing, you should still have access to your research or at least be able to provide a short explanation (but longer than "engine reasons" which doesn't explain anything). I'm not actually claiming that you are incorrect, but you're not proving anything by repeatedly saying that you are and citing research no one can find.
|
|
|
On January 13 2014 04:59 zlefin wrote:
No, the burden of proof is on the other side, liquipedia just copied from the game files without doing any verification, I posted methodology and have done the tests. That puts burden on someone else to do the darn tests.
I already said the original research posts are gone because battle.net deleted the old forums.
People not paying attention to me is a perennial problem in my life and it's immensely frustrating.
None of you are willing to actually do any tests yourself, unless you're willing to actually do the tests yourself you shouldn't be gainsaying.
No, that's not how it works, you're making a claim that's not backed-up anywhere, the burden of proof is on YOU. If you want us to believe you, you have to show us work. If this is a recurring problem in your life, I see certainly see why. I can see why it would be frustrating to you - if you actually did do these tests, you know in your heart it's true. But from an outsider's perspective, we can't just believe everybody that claims the things you say. There are a lot of liars out there. Anyways, I'm not going to test it, I don't actually care at all, and you're seemingly not going to, so I guess that's that.
Anyways, I won't be revisiting the thread
|
|
|
Zealously, you are not wiling to do any of the tests yourself, so stop talking, all you're doing is proving your own poor manners, and inability to conduct actual science.
I'll take the argument up on liquipedia, maybe there people will be actually courteous.
Zenbrez, good, you haven't contributed anything useful to the discussion other than to make someone with problems get angry.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 13 2014 04:59 zlefin wrote:
No, the burden of proof is on the other side, liquipedia just copied from the game files without doing any verification, I posted methodology and have done the tests. That puts burden on someone else to do the darn tests.
I already said the original research posts are gone because battle.net deleted the old forums.
People not paying attention to me is a perennial problem in my life and it's immensely frustrating.
None of you are willing to actually do any tests yourself, unless you're willing to actually do the tests yourself you shouldn't be gainsaying.
edit: looks like liquipedia also doesn't have the more complete details on how dark swarm works and how it interacts with burrow; or on the other units that are affected by engine preventing them from using their full cooldown.
Look at it from Zealously's perspective -- or an impartial observer like me, for that matter. Liquipedia / Blizzard says 100%. Random stranger comes in stating it is in fact 66%, he tested it. People ask for proof. Stranger says everything has been deleted. People are not convinced by 0 evidence (obviously). Stranger gets mad that he is "being ignored", people should believe him. Burden of proof is on them, he claims, even though he provided 0 evidence and it was him who claimed the official 100% is wrong.
Get it? What Zealously and others do is perfectly understandable considering you gave 0 evidence. I believe you when you say you tested it but you have to understand that when that evidence gets deleted or is otherwise unavailable this makes it worthless to use in an argument. It might as well not exist, we don't know it. Anyone could make statements like that.
Don't get so mad. People are not attacking you, just questioning your claims. Rightfully so, I'd add. You can still be right, nobody says you are wrong per se, just want some proof.
|
On January 13 2014 05:11 zlefin wrote:
Zealously, you are not wiling to do any of the tests yourself, so stop talking, all you're doing is proving your own poor manners, and inability to conduct actual science.
I'll take the argument up on liquipedia, maybe there people will be actually courteous.
Zenbrez, good, you haven't contributed anything useful to the discussion other than to make someone with problems get angry.
Doesn't actual science usually involve some kind of permanent documentation?
|
Good post Cheren, finally something useful.
Hmmm, a slight difference, but he could be right that it's 72%, i'd have to redo tests for that.
Other things of note you can tell from that:
The improved attack speed of cracklings over zerglings isn't 8 to 6 as liquiapedia says, but more like 8 to 5.5;
ultralisk don't actually attack at their listed cooldown of 15 (same as marines) but a little slower, in the 17-18 cooldown area;
corsairs also don't attack at their listed cooldown of 8, but are around a cooldown of 9 in actuality.
what's frustrating is that all this was proven long ago and blizz didn't fix their site, so people copying that still get it wrong and so many people still dont' know about it. I did a lot of work in bw figuring out mechanics like dark swarm and verifying numbers, and it's frustrating that it gets lost.
Besides, that post cheren linked shows what I've said, that the in-game results don't match the numbers in the game files, so there's your proof.
Liquipedia is not an authoritative source to be relied upon.
|
Games have more constant action and they are easier/enjoyable for viewers since they last longer. There's quite a lot of upgrades that you can choose for different units. I would love to see some example games from each matchup, PvT is great from what I can tell from those first page VODs.
Let's hope free arcade patch will bring more users to Starbow!
|
United Kingdom31935 Posts
Dont get mad at Zealously yo just cause he makes sense! I get your pov but he isnt attacking you in anyway in fact what he and the others are saying is quite logical
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 13 2014 05:11 zlefin wrote:
Zealously, you are not wiling to do any of the tests yourself, so stop talking, all you're doing is proving your own poor manners, and inability to conduct actual science.
I'll take the argument up on liquipedia, maybe there people will be actually courteous.
Zenbrez, good, you haven't contributed anything useful to the discussion other than to make someone with problems get angry.
For all we know you haven't conducted any tests either. Especially since the two different sources we have both arrived at different conclusions than you did in your supposed tests. Come on man, show us the evidence and I'll get off your back.
|
If anyone is interested. Starbow stream is up (its streamed on a bad comp though).
http://www.twitch.tv/decemberscalm
Currently a game between 2 GM's.
On January 13 2014 05:19 nukkuj wrote:
Games have more constant action and they are easier/enjoyable for viewers since they last longer. There's quite a lot of upgrades that you can choose for different units. I would love to see some example games from each matchup, PvT is great from what I can tell from those first page VODs.
Let's hope free arcade patch will bring more users to Starbow!
I think the vs P matchups are going to be most popular in SBOW. TvZ HOTS is already pretty actionpacked, while the protoss matchups generally are more boring. SBOW can't really make the TvZ matchup more multitaskbased, but it can showcase a lot more variety and new types of strategies, which can be quite fun as well.
But mostly, SBOW IMO makes protoss much more fun to watch and play.
|
Wow so that's how SC2 looks like if it was not just DeathBall vs DeathBall.
|
52 people in chat compared to the general chat of 38! Awesome.
|
Just tuned into the stream. Are they actually playing at some point?
[edit] nvm
|
United Kingdom31935 Posts
Will play tomorrow cant wait to try it out
|
When I saw Starbow for the first time(like 1 year ago I think) I didn't quite like it, but now seeing some of the games, it really seems a lot more polished and more balanced than before and I actually really dig it right now. Wish Blizzard would recognize something from this and would change something in LotV.
Also, is there a way to look at all of the Starbow's units, upgrades and stats? I really want to see what Viper has, what have you done with Roach, Sentinel stats etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
