EPTWelcome to ZParcraft II - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Terence Chill
Germany112 Posts
| ||
|
Picasso
Korea (South)52 Posts
Yes they do lie, in fact. You just proved your own naivete by your post. Do you realize how easy it is to present statistics in a favorable manner? That's one of the biggest (mis)usages of statistics to begin with. Then are you going to believe 100% of statistics your government brings to you? *facepalm* | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:21 Tzuborg wrote: What the hell is up with all these lazy ass comments like this? Have you even read the opening post? He thouroughly backs up his points with detailed explanations and data. How on earth can you justify it in your mind to simply reduce this to "balance whining"? And is there something wrong about complaining about balance if there really is a significant imbalance? That's just it though: it's an editorial, which makes it biased by definition. It's an opinion piece. He does a lot of work to back a lot of it up, but if you look through it carefully and do your best to filter and really think about it, a lot of it is actually flimsy. There's certainly some good stuff here, but it is possible to disagree with his conclusions even while looking at the evidence he provides. I would not describe it as 'thoroughly' backed up, as if it's case closed. Mind you, the poster you are replying too is obviously very lazy about his reply. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:14 Hunta15 wrote: Biased whining, all this really is. Wouldn't read again. Biased response, all this really is. Wouldn't read again. The difference between our posts is that one of them involved actually reading the OP. | ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9366 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:20 Xinzoe wrote: You can use statistics to whine all you want but statistics take a long time to adjust back to "balanced" statistics. The reason that Code S still has 4 Terrans is not solely based on balanced. Top 8 in Code S is seeded into next season's Code S. Now you have automatically have a bunch of protoss,zergs, and 1 terran. Bottom 24 goes back to Code A and assuming 60%+ of those reach Code S again then you still would most likely have 8 Terrans maximum with a few Code B -> Code S appearances. And because there are more zerg/toss than terrans then it would make sense that a terran would most likely not win anyway right? .... All i'm trying to say is those graphs dont mean much when patches happen not so long ago. Give it another 3 months maybe? True, but it is worth noting a few things; - The author specifically analyzes how the new patch has impaced the balance, and concludes that there won't be a significant effect. - Aliguac statistics postpatch shows TvZ is in a worse state than ever. - Logically, it never made sense that the Hellbat change would fix the balance problem in TvZ, since it really only impacts early game builds, which was never really the main problem in TvZ. | ||
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
| ||
|
DomeGetta
480 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:21 Whitewing wrote: I certainly can't shit on it, since I gave my approval to it before it was posted (despite heavily disagreeing with it). I think a lot of it is wrong and misguided and is a poor way of thinking, and I thought the same about Lings of Liberty. I really don't like this type of statement - I know not everyone has time to go through in detail and specify out their issues with the content .. I'm not saying the content is perfect myself as I have not scrutinized it to nth degree of detail.. My problem is if there is something specific that is "wrong" - (and I'm ok with people saying that their OPINION is that it is a poor way of thinking but that's not the same thing as saying that the content is wrong) - then those specific items should be pointed out and either debated or corrected - hell even in the OP - I don't think DWF would have any issue editing something if he made a mistake or sited something incorrectly.. but people keep just throwing out that hes posting BS up there and like I said, without going through it with a fine tooth comb, I don't see the BS.. if you could.. please help enlighten the readers and get it corrected if its wrong. *Note - unless I misunderstood you and you weren't saying his facts/evidence are wrong you are just saying his conclusions are wrong.. in which case everyone is entitle to their opinion on that..it is in fact, an opinion. | ||
|
Shebuha
Canada1335 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:26 graNite wrote: Its was so funny when they introduced the warhound and all protosses cried it was "imba" but when the oracle came terran just had "to adjust" :D Not even comparable. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:26 graNite wrote: Its was so funny when they introduced the warhound and all protosses cried it was "imba" but when the oracle came terran just had "to adjust" :D Terrans did more complaining about the design of the warhound than the protoss players did (as it was just a marauder from the factory). Balance wise the unit was ridiculous during the beta: it was cost efficient against every ground unit in the game. For cost it beat every toss ground unit, every zerg ground unit, and every terran ground unit that wasn't a warhound. Seriously, you can find vidoes of them testing it on youtube. If you'll recall, terrans wanted mech to be viable but wanted it based around the siege tank: they didn't want mobile power units from the factory, as that's the same as playing bio. The oracle filled a design hole in the protoss unit set, made it possible to play stargate without robo by allowing for detection, and was generally useful. Also, when it was buffed, a ton of protoss players complained because it ruined PvP. Before it was buffed, the PvP standard was 1 gate expand into Immortal/Archon/Chargelot mid-games. Because of the buff, that opening became impossible: 3 gate stargate with an oracle kills it every time. Hell, you can go oracle -> expand and get ahead vs. that opener. PvP is now back to colossus based laser wars like it was in WoL because of that change. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:28 DomeGetta wrote: I really don't like this type of statement - I know not everyone has time to go through in detail and specify out their issues with the content .. I'm not saying the content is perfect myself as I have not scrutinized it to nth degree of detail.. My problem is if there is something specific that is "wrong" - (and I'm ok with people saying that their OPINION is that it is a poor way of thinking but that's not the same thing as saying that the content is wrong) - then those specific items should be pointed out and either debated or corrected - hell even in the OP - I don't think DWF would have any issue editing something if he made a mistake or sited something incorrectly.. but people keep just throwing out that hes posting BS up there and like I said, without going through it with a fine tooth comb, I don't see the BS.. if you could.. please help enlighten the readers and get it corrected if its wrong. Okay, I'll try to get a detailed response up soon, I'm rather swamped at the moment but I'll do my best. | ||
|
DomeGetta
480 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:30 Whitewing wrote: Okay, I'll try to get a detailed response up soon, I'm rather swamped at the moment but I'll do my best. Cool cool - also see my note I edited - I'm not sure if you were saying that his data is wrong, or that his conclusions are wrong... didn't mean to say that everyone needs to justify their reasons that they don't agree with the mans conclusions to the evidence supported, I just meant to say, and not specifically to you but to anyone who is saying that he's posting non-facts as facts - that instead of saying generally that "he's posting BS" point out what you disagree with specifically, more constructive in my opinion. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11347 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:26 graNite wrote: Its was so funny when they introduced the warhound and all protosses cried it was "imba" but when the oracle came terran just had "to adjust" :D I don't know about others, but my chief complaint on the warhounds was that Blizzard's stated goal was to 'increase mech play.' But in my opinion mech play is very different style of game, whereas the warhound was a glorified bio unit that just so happened to come out of a factory. In fact, warhounds were very good at destroying the cornerstone to mech play: siege tanks. Nothing to do with balance at all. | ||
|
Picasso
Korea (South)52 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:23 DomeGetta wrote: This is now the 5th or 6th post that totes "the factually not completely correct statements" but points out not a single one of them. You are criticizing him for "shiny statistics and flashy videos" without any statistics or even points for that matter of your own.. the only reason you guys are pissed that it's featured is because it sheds light on some issues that you would rather not have out there.. period. I stated this before, but as one of MANY instances where the facts are distorted here, thedwf presents hellbat drops as something way overrated because INnoVation (not Bogus, as thedwf wrote; wish thedwf shows some respect for what the guy decides to call himself as) has to keep his production running while executing the drops. But this is nothing shocking or something that Terran is disadvantaged for, because any form of harass has to be happening concurrently with other general macro, whether it be baneling runbys or dt harass. Thedwf makes Terrans sound a lot more pitiful by saying "but...but hellbat drops aren't that good! We have to keep making marines while dropping, you see?" when in reality that's just basic SC mechanics for any of the three races. The reason people aren't bothering to give a case-by-case rebuttal of his disgusting biases are because it would simply take too much damn time to do so. I'd rather point out people's unwarranted logic for advocating a controversial article like this than having to go through multi-dozen hours pointing out the fundamental flaws of this article. And pls stop with the "this will finally shed light on T being underpowered." There were many more elegant ways to frame the issue, in which the author isn't a jerk towards people playing anything but Terran | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:33 DomeGetta wrote: Cool cool - also see my note I edited - I'm not sure if you were saying that his data is wrong, or that his conclusions are wrong... didn't mean to say that everyone needs to justify their reasons that they don't agree with the mans conclusions to the evidence supported, I just meant to say, and not specifically to you but to anyone who is saying that he's posting non-facts as facts - that instead of saying generally that "he's posting BS" point out what you disagree with specifically, more constructive in my opinion. I was referring to his conclusions and the way he presents his arguments. A lot of his arguments are based on cherry picked evidence. | ||
|
DomeGetta
480 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:34 Picasso wrote: I stated this before, but as one of MANY instances where the facts are distorted here, thedwf presents hellbat drops as something way overrated because INnoVation (not Bogus, as thedwf wrote; wish thedwf shows some respect for what the guy decides to call himself as) has to keep his production running while executing the drops. But this is nothing shocking or something that Terran is disadvantaged for, because any form of harass has to be happening concurrently with other general macro, whether it be baneling runbys or dt harass. Thedwf makes Terrans sound a lot more pitiful by saying "but...but hellbat drops aren't that good! We have to keep making marines while dropping, you see?" when in reality that's just basic SC mechanics for any of the three races. The reason people aren't bothering to give a case-by-case rebuttal of his disgusting biases are because it would simply take too much damn time to do so. I'd rather point out people's unwarranted logic for advocating a controversial article like this than having to go through multi-dozen hours pointing out the fundamental flaws of this article. And pls stop with the "this will finally shed light on T being underpowered." There were many more elegant ways to frame the issue, in which the author isn't a jerk towards people playing anything but Terran Ok cool so let me get it straight then.. essentially what you are saying is - he says it's hard to hellbat drop while macroing and you are saying it's not. Those are both opinions...neither one of them is a fact.. this is the same example you sited earlier as "factually not true".. Please re-read your statement and perhaps loop through your logic flow. Again - you don't like his opinions.. fine.. but stop calling it wrong or factually incorrect unless you have an actual example - it makes the rest of what you say seem less credible. | ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:38 DomeGetta wrote: Ok cool so let me get it straight then.. essentially what you are saying is - he says it's hard to hellbat drop while macroing and you are saying it's not. Those are both opinions...neither one of them is a fact.. this is the same example you sited earlier as "factually not true".. Please re-read your statement and perhaps loop through your logic flow. Again - you don't like his opinions.. fine.. but stop calling it wrong or factually incorrect unless you have an actual example - it makes the rest of what you say seem less credible. Well no, he didn't say it's not hard to do it. He's saying that his opponent has to do that stuff too: he's not saying it's easy or hard, but that it's just as much a requirement for his opponent. Protoss and zergs have this same requirement, it's not terran specific. Chill out a little though, it's just a friendly chat =p. | ||
|
DomeGetta
480 Posts
On June 30 2014 01:35 Whitewing wrote: I was referring to his conclusions and the way he presents his arguments. A lot of his arguments are based on cherry picked evidence. This I will agree with totally. However, as someone who deals with statistics in great detail professionally - this is almost always the case. Even breaking down the logic to arrive at the conclusions is useful though I feel.. counter-arguments can be eye opening for a person who has not considered every possible scenario. That sort of thing I promote and love to actively engage. | ||
|
Tryagain4free
81 Posts
I haven't commented in this forums for ages. And I promised myself to never again do so on balance related topics. But anyway: It was a hell of read for me. Can only vagualy imagine the time, effort an research you have put into this editorial. Thank you very much for all of this. Your article sums up so many things wrong with Sc2 atm; not just terran. It is always delicate to experience the reactions of an auditorium. If you are reading all these comments, ( I assume you do), and you are asking yourself, if your work has real value for the Sc2 community, I would like to underline one thing: Most negative responses try to tackle the form, tone or prtetended inherent bias of your editorial. No one has yet been able to debunk any of your core points. A brief discussion about the state of Terran (and the game as a whole) is more needed then ever at this point in time. I have nothing but respect for your commitment to the topic of terran gameplay in my favorite game. Especially because not all members of TL like your message. GG well played | ||
| ||
