|
On January 13 2014 08:23 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +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)
Many units models were made by Blizzard, but the units didn't make it to multiplayer.
The dragoon however is afaik the bottom half of an immortal. (or at least was at some point)
|
Looking for 1v1 right now, don't care if NA or EU.
|
On January 13 2014 08:25 S1eth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:23 Waise wrote: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) Many units models were made by Blizzard, but the units didn't make it to multiplayer. The dragoon however is afaik the bottom half of an immortal.
interesting, but the point still holds up - the mod is using "unused" units which obviously weren't streamlined and perfected because, as you say, they didn't make it to multiplayer, so lower quality should be expected
|
On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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.
The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime.
However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger.
|
On January 13 2014 08:29 superpanda27 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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. The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime. However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger.
...who as of now by the look of things turned out to be right. I guess you should give credit where credit is due. I also think when a person goes against the mainstream opinion while providing insights into how things really work (whether with proofs or not) and turns out to be right in the end he should be praised, not flamed for his indecent behavior.
|
On January 13 2014 08:36 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:29 superpanda27 wrote:On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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. The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime. However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger. ...who as of now by the look of things turned out to be right. I guess you should give credit where credit is due. I also think when a person goes against the mainstream opinion providing insights (whether with proves or not) and turns out to be right in the end he should be praised, not flamed for his indecent behavior.
So Cheren deserves credit for showing his work. Zlefin not so much, since he invoked the lazy "trust me bro, its true" argument, regardless if he went against the main stream or not.
|
On January 13 2014 08:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:36 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 08:29 superpanda27 wrote:On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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. The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime. However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger. ...who as of now by the look of things turned out to be right. I guess you should give credit where credit is due. I also think when a person goes against the mainstream opinion providing insights (whether with proves or not) and turns out to be right in the end he should be praised, not flamed for his indecent behavior. So Cheren deserves credit for showing his work. Zlefin not so much, since he invoked the lazy "trust me bro, its true" argument, regardless if he went against the main stream or not.
first of all Cheren didn't link his own work, you didn't even bother to see it before giving out the praise. Secondly, in that work the dps research is not present, a person just uses it's result (numbers of dps prestim and dps after stim, so a coefficient can be calculated), basically in the same way Zlefin does, relying on trusting his word, so they deserve the same kind of praise.
|
*Nominating Big_Aug for best troll of in thread*
I know it's been posted before, but Crank is streaming -- hopefully other ppl will stream or at least try it out!
|
On January 13 2014 08:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:36 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 08:29 superpanda27 wrote:On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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. The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime. However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger. ...who as of now by the look of things turned out to be right. I guess you should give credit where credit is due. I also think when a person goes against the mainstream opinion providing insights (whether with proves or not) and turns out to be right in the end he should be praised, not flamed for his indecent behavior. So Cheren deserves credit for showing his work. Zlefin not so much, since he invoked the lazy "trust me bro, its true" argument, regardless if he went against the main stream or not.
I used nothing but the power of the search function.
|
On January 13 2014 08:48 Cheren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:42 Plansix wrote:On January 13 2014 08:36 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 08:29 superpanda27 wrote:On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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. The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime. However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger. ...who as of now by the look of things turned out to be right. I guess you should give credit where credit is due. I also think when a person goes against the mainstream opinion providing insights (whether with proves or not) and turns out to be right in the end he should be praised, not flamed for his indecent behavior. So Cheren deserves credit for showing his work. Zlefin not so much, since he invoked the lazy "trust me bro, its true" argument, regardless if he went against the main stream or not. I used nothing but the power of the search function.
Which I praise you for. It is more than Zlefin did.
|
Ok so now we know that Zealously is wrong and Zlefin is right, let's not derail the thread any further.
There will probably be a huge influx of players from BW to StarBow after Patch 2.1 to make Arcade free and have BW sounds so there will be money made there as long as TB sponsor tournies and such.
|
^ would be interesting to see what players like Bisu, ZerO, Sea, JangBi etc etc say about the mod if they try it. Having Axiom playing it is a good step, if they really enjoy it and share the word in KR, it may become popular amonst the pro players 
|
On January 13 2014 08:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:48 Cheren wrote:On January 13 2014 08:42 Plansix wrote:On January 13 2014 08:36 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 08:29 superpanda27 wrote:On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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. The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime. However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger. ...who as of now by the look of things turned out to be right. I guess you should give credit where credit is due. I also think when a person goes against the mainstream opinion providing insights (whether with proves or not) and turns out to be right in the end he should be praised, not flamed for his indecent behavior. So Cheren deserves credit for showing his work. Zlefin not so much, since he invoked the lazy "trust me bro, its true" argument, regardless if he went against the main stream or not. I used nothing but the power of the search function. Which I praise you for. It is more than Zlefin did.
So let me break it down. What Cheren did was quoting somebody else's words that they made some tests and stim effect is around 72% (no proofs are given there). Zlefin did essentially the same, he just quoted himself, but he also relied on his own work, for which the praise is due since it is correct. And you are praising Cheren, BUT NOT zlefin. Ok.
|
On January 13 2014 08:36 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:29 superpanda27 wrote:On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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. The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime. However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger. ...who as of now by the look of things turned out to be right. I guess you should give credit where credit is due. I also think when a person goes against the mainstream opinion while providing insights into how things really work (whether with proofs or not) and turns out to be right in the end he should be praised, not flamed for his indecent behavior.
Don't know why you bolded a complete stranger and no a person should not always be praised because they went against mainstream and were eventually right. The way zlefin went about it was completely off. It wasn't until Cheren supplied the thread that someone could actually say that Blizzard/Liquipedia was wrong. I give credit Cheren for finding the thread or at least a thread that gives a better jumping off point.
Anyways, I really hope this mod takes off and that mod authors will be able to balance the units in a timely fashion. Also map makers will find a way to make interesting maps now that the map making hindrance of sentry and forcefields are gone.
|
On January 13 2014 09:04 superpanda27 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:36 Cheerio wrote:On January 13 2014 08:29 superpanda27 wrote:On January 13 2014 07:56 Cheerio wrote:
Also what kind of hard proof do you guys expect? Suppose zlefin runs some tests and presents it's 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 math 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. The proof that he did those tests, running the test showing results, and/or that other people verified that he was right. The original thread he posted his results in another thread got deleted, so people will take what evidence has been given to them which is liquipedia/Blizzard. To go beyond what was given to us is not our prerogative, but his because he is the one who says it is wrong. It's like asking a jury/judge to decide a verdict without being given actual evidence by a prosecution other than prosecutor saying that the defendant committed the crime. However, Cheren is the only one who provided some kind of evidence of liquipedia/blizzard numbers being wrong, which is what people had been asking for. zlefin kept going on and on that we should take his word, but he did so without zero backing until Cheren linked us that thread. I'd be more willing to believe zlefin now, but before that it was well-known and generally trusted site versus a complete stranger. ...who as of now by the look of things turned out to be right. I guess you should give credit where credit is due. I also think when a person goes against the mainstream opinion while providing insights into how things really work (whether with proofs or not) and turns out to be right in the end he should be praised, not flamed for his indecent behavior. Don't know why you bolded a complete stranger and no a person should not always be praised because they went against mainstream and were eventually right. The way zlefin went about it was completely off. It wasn't until Cheren supplied the thread that someone could actually say that Blizzard/Liquipedia was wrong. I give credit Cheren for finding the thread or at least a thread that gives a better jumping off point. Anyways, I really hope this mod takes off and that mod authors will be able to balance the units in a timely fashion. Also map makers will find a way to make interesting maps now that the map making hindrance of sentry and forcefields are gone.
ok, I give up. This is just absurd.
|
wow this mod looks legit, make a ranking system and you could problaby see a movement into starbow!
|
Game is fun, showing the power of the SC2 engine for sure. I remember playing troll games that just had it so you could build crazy imbalanced units, but this one is actually legit.
|
Wow, this looks so awesome! I haven't had the chance to try it myself, but I'm definitely looking forward to playing it
|
Crank is streaming sbow???
|
On January 13 2014 09:25 CutTheEnemy wrote:
Crank is streaming sbow???
His stream title says he's playing it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
