|
On January 13 2014 05:04 Zenbrez wrote:Show nested quote +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
when knowledgeable people are giving you a free advice you'd better listen. Of course that depends on how good you are at judging knowledgeability, but if you are not you are missing on a lot of useful information.
|
Sad that this is what SC2 could have been if Blizzard had been more willing to stick to the fundamentals and not try to completely overhaul every aspect of the game just to make it 'different'. Maybe one day we'll see actual leagues for this great mod!
|
On January 13 2014 07:00 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:04 Zenbrez wrote: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 when knowledgeable people are giving you a free advice you'd better listen. Of course that depends on how good you are at judging knowledgeability, but if you are not you are missing on a lot of useful information.
In general I trust the people who work on liquipedia over some random forum poster who refused to back up his claim with any sort of proof. The "Trust me Bro, I know" argument does not hold a lot of water.
|
Just watched the impact vs ryung game. It was incredible to watch but knowing Blizzard's ego/pride they'll never adopt any of this so this would have to be a community push for tournament play / ladder play some how with it.
|
On January 13 2014 07:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 07:00 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 05:04 Zenbrez wrote: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 when knowledgeable people are giving you a free advice you'd better listen. Of course that depends on how good you are at judging knowledgeability, but if you are not you are missing on a lot of useful information. In general I trust the people who work on liquipedia over some random forum poster who refused to back up his claim with any sort of proof. The "Trust me Bro, I know" argument does not hold a lot of water.
Well we have now two seemingly unconnected people claiming they did their research and estimated stim DPS effectiveness at a number far from 100%. One claims 72%, the other 66%. Since Liquipedia doesn't claim to have done or referenced any research any rational reader should assume these guys have a point, unless you can prove those two are one person or are involved in a plot aimed to disinform the community.
|
On January 13 2014 07:23 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 07:07 Plansix wrote:On January 13 2014 07:00 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 05:04 Zenbrez wrote: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 when knowledgeable people are giving you a free advice you'd better listen. Of course that depends on how good you are at judging knowledgeability, but if you are not you are missing on a lot of useful information. In general I trust the people who work on liquipedia over some random forum poster who refused to back up his claim with any sort of proof. The "Trust me Bro, I know" argument does not hold a lot of water. Well we have now two seemingly unconnected people claiming they did their research and estimated stim DPS effectiveness at a number far from 100%. One claims 72%, the other 66%. Since Liquipedia doesn't claim to have done or reference any research any rational reader should assume these guys have a point, unless you can prove those two are one person or are involved in a plot aimed to disinform the community.
I have to pick one and I am going to choose the one that is maintained by the TL writing staff and community members, rather than two random people on the forums who actively refuse to show their work. Until they back up their claims, I will simply assume they are wrong. Its how science works too, if you claim stuff you need to back it up with evidence.
|
So far I haven't liked everything I've seen, but I've liked most of it. I'd love to see the inclusion of a few more SC2 units at some point in the future, but so far, this is feeling like a pretty decent BW+ mod.
|
On January 13 2014 07:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 07:23 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 07:07 Plansix wrote:On January 13 2014 07:00 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 05:04 Zenbrez wrote: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 when knowledgeable people are giving you a free advice you'd better listen. Of course that depends on how good you are at judging knowledgeability, but if you are not you are missing on a lot of useful information. In general I trust the people who work on liquipedia over some random forum poster who refused to back up his claim with any sort of proof. The "Trust me Bro, I know" argument does not hold a lot of water. Well we have now two seemingly unconnected people claiming they did their research and estimated stim DPS effectiveness at a number far from 100%. One claims 72%, the other 66%. Since Liquipedia doesn't claim to have done or reference any research any rational reader should assume these guys have a point, unless you can prove those two are one person or are involved in a plot aimed to disinform the community. I have to pick one and I am going to choose the one that is maintained by the TL writing staff and community members, rather than two random people on the forums who actively refuse to show their work. Until they back up their claims, I will simply assume they are wrong. Its how science works too, if you claim stuff you need to back it up with evidence.
well you should also consider this:
edit: changed initial math
their finding helps to explain a weird finding at Liquipedia Ensnare article that shows that stimmed marine dps falls under ensnare by 42% compared to normal 18% reduction. According to the article ensnare effectively negates stim. If the stim bonus was 100% marine damage would have been reduced to 50%. If we assume stim buff at 66% then ensnared damage reduction would be 39,76%, and if at 72% then the ensnared damage reduction would be 41,86%. As you can see 42% damage reduction is just beyond that and could actually be the result of the rounding up of 41,86%. Anyway the number is WAAAY closer to the results that these guys would predict compared to the expected from Liquipedia 50%, so Liquipedia contradicts itself on this one and is clearly asking for corrections on it's info database. And when it is being presented to you you do what? you say Liquipedia knows better.
P.S. I'm pretty sure on this finding alone liquipedia can be convinced to change their article to accomodate for the new information since they clearly don't have any other info against it.
|
Thought I would make a post before the usual million posts a month crowd completely take over. Just would like to show a bit of support for the people involved in creating Starbow. Tried it out and although I can not say I like everything about the mod it shows some passion for RTS that is seriously lacking in recent years.
The larger gaming devs are simply not interested in RTS right now and it is a damn shame as any older gen gamers know how popular RTS used to be. Going back to c&c - wc2 days when things really started kicking off I have to say the last few years have been incredibly poor in terms of new releases and bringing interest to similar games. I hope things improve in the near future as I have always thought that RTS is the genre that is the best for competitive play within video games and has the most potential for epic moments/crowd pleasers.
Hope you guys continue to patch Starbow and maybe it can become a hugely popular mod. GL!
|
No words can express how badly I want there to be a dedicated league/ladder for this. I haven't felt this way about watching Starcraft since I first got into the scene. This is great!
|
|
|
Zerg looks sexy as hell! finally more high tech units
|
I never played the original SC, but some of the models in Starbow look really cheesey. Maybe they're nostalgic for some folks, but those hellion like units look awful. And the slug looking protoss unit? *cringe*
|
On January 13 2014 07:52 big_aug wrote:
I never played the original SC, but some of the models in Starbow look really cheesey. Maybe they're nostalgic for some folks, but those hellion like units look awful. And the slug looking protoss unit? *cringe*
I believe you are talking about Vultures and Reavers. Great units, created a lot of exciting moments, more-so than the Hellion and Colossus ever has tbh :p
|
On January 13 2014 07:52 big_aug wrote:
I never played the original SC, but some of the models in Starbow look really cheesey. Maybe they're nostalgic for some folks, but those hellion like units look awful. And the slug looking protoss unit? *cringe*
Which models would you give to the "slug looking protoss unit", it's slow as fuck, the slug look is perfect
|
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents results. How do you know he did actually gather those numbers himself or made them up to back up his theory? In the end when a person comes in and says something weird with the test behind it or not it's all down to whether people will believe him or not (his numbers can't be verified anyway, the only way to disprove him is to make your own test, something clearly none of you is going to do), it's just that a person who posts numbers looks knowledgeable. I find it hilarious.
|
On January 13 2014 07:52 big_aug wrote:
I never played the original SC, but some of the models in Starbow look really cheesey. Maybe they're nostalgic for some folks, but those hellion like units look awful. And the slug looking protoss unit? *cringe*
fuckin lol
|
On January 13 2014 07:52 big_aug wrote:
I never played the original SC, but some of the models in Starbow look really cheesey. Maybe they're nostalgic for some folks, but those hellion like units look awful. And the slug looking protoss unit? *cringe*
Did you not play the Wings of Liberty campaign? You get vultures there.
|
On January 13 2014 07:52 big_aug wrote:
I never played the original SC, but some of the models in Starbow look really cheesey. Maybe they're nostalgic for some folks, but those hellion like units look awful. And the slug looking protoss unit? *cringe*
i agree, but what do you expect? it's a mod. you expect a mod to have the model design qualify of blizzard entertainment?
a lot of them do really look bad though. dragoons look awful (yes, i know they look more like they did in the cutscenes - they looked awful in the cutscenes)
|
On January 13 2014 07:52 big_aug wrote:
I never played the original SC, but some of the models in Starbow look really cheesey. Maybe they're nostalgic for some folks, but those hellion like units look awful. And the slug looking protoss unit? *cringe*
Speaking ill of the reaver on TL is a good way to get lynched, just a heads up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
