|
On July 03 2014 01:24 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:10 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:
TheDwf for president!
I like the proposed mech changes a lot. I still find it baffling how some sort of serious Tank buff like that was not even tried during BETA. I want to take you back... way to back to when David Kim said this: On September 20 2012 David Kim wrote:
1. All mech revolving around Siege Tanks makes Terran want to sit back and defend for a very long time.
He had apparently never watched a game of Brood War. And he said this while he was creating the Swarm Host! Just more evidence of his inability to understand this game. Meanwhile the community and I were asking for Tank Buffs: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viable Found the entire thing + Show Spoiler +Our latest thinking on HotS mech:
1. All mech revolving around Siege Tanks makes Terran want to sit back and defend for a very long time. We're not sure what the correct ratio of this sort of play would be against how Terran players play now.
2. Mech revolving around a more all round/slightly mobile unit didn't work out with the Warhound.
3. Widow Mine being a more useful option is looking to be a really fun add to mech. We really want to focus on making this unit awesome for now and see where it goes.
4. Battle mode Hellions being built as a separate unit feels good for now due to how different this unit is from the hellion. We've been playing around with Battle Hellions that have Biological flag (can be healed my Medivacs), and are seeing more bio + mech cominations.
So overall, we think it'll be good if players in the beta really focus on the Widow Mines and Battle Hellions in the next couple weeks to really figure out their potential. They were bassically buthurt after we rejected the Warhound and gave up on their promise to make mech viable. Having said that, i suspect it is not David Kim that is to blame for this, but mister terrible terrible damage. The only mech buffs (including a small tank buff) and a slight change in philosophy (think Blizzcon where DK stated he wanted to make mech viable TvZ AND TvP) happened when Dustin left the building to focus on the MOBA.
The Warhound was evidence of incompetence within Blizzard's design team. You don't spend time and money creating, advertising and putting to Beta such a terrible, terrible idea. It never should have left the design table, or even the head of the person who thought of it.
And it highlights that Blizzard doesn't (or didn't) understand that making Mech viable isn't about making units that really good come out of the Factory, but rather it is a positional play style, which requires a different set of skills to the mobility based play style of Bio, and leads to diversity in the game.
Anyway, it is all conjecture regarding who is responsible for this mess. But a new design team has been a long time coming.
|
To the guy saying its cause I don't win games...dont be ridiculous and unnessecarily hatefull.
I'm not hateful, I kinda like your character from a viewer perspective, you might have been a bit douchy sometime in the forum but I don't blame you for that.
It's just that if terran have such a good midgame, lategame transition wouldn't be this difficult on the terran side. What you are refering to is huge commiting from terran in the midgame that might be very good with the last patch, I indeed agree, but it doesn't really change jackshit for the lategame transition if you play a more conservative style (even with stop HB play). The main goal of this patch was to make the terran midgame standard pressure more efficient, thus preventing zerg to take a huge lead in the late. I think TvZ late game is fine if both race start on a even foot, it is not in the current meta because they are allowed to drone too much too early.
The HB patch is used as a big commit right now with a late 3rd CC and late upgrade.
I don't think it make 11min standard pressure more strong.
So all in all these 2 changes might not have a real synergy, it would just give terran larger panel of choice, which is nice imho.
Edit for^ : yes, warhound was like roach 2.0, please this is shit so badly designed it hurts my brain.
|
TheDwf, i think you 're a bit extreme with stim...are u a bio player?^^
Research time decreased to 140 seconds, down from 170.
3. In TvZ, an earlier stim timing (and by repercussion an earlier CS timing) would boost a bit the "2-bases timing into third" openings, which are currently mostly dead because they lack power against 3 hatch builds.
- 30secondes is insane^^ 15 secondes top and i completely disagree with the idea.
Even if medivac+up could be an issue in TvT, my solution is UP turret^^ it will not only help vs drops but also vs mutas where they are a bit useless. More range is a first step, i will be small help vs dts and dumb obvs too. However i am not sur considering the impact for banshee.(50/50 upgrade in bay ?)
Others propositions are not really that relevant at the moment.
( Ghost : Snipe damage changed from 25 (+25 to Psionic) to 45 (-10 to Massive). NEVER!!!
Tempest/Siege/immortal lead us right back to the mech issue and how the raven will be changed so no legacy = stuck.
|
On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything.
OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power.
Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument.
You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem".
|
On July 03 2014 01:35 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power. Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument. You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem".
I do have no counter argument. And I never said Protoss is not the problem.
Because I'm not involved in this argument. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy.
|
Medivac change is bad since it only helps bio.
Widow mine change is good since it helps both bio and mech.
But the real solution would be to improve tanks.
|
On July 03 2014 01:36 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:35 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power. Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument. You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem". I do have no counter argument. And I never said Protoss is not the problem. Because I'm not involved in this argument. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy.
Well, what you said is true obviously. Yet this isn't an instance of it. Ret has an argument and MichealDonovan probably implied that "people should listen to his argumentation, because a professional has a better understanding of the game. Hence his arguments are on a higher level". I mean, what he said is clearly a reference to Ret's comment. Not just some "he is a professional and everything he says should be believed" nonsense.
|
On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:05 Liquid`Ret wrote:On July 03 2014 01:01 DinoMight wrote:On July 03 2014 00:57 Liquid`Ret wrote:
the hellbat change already makes tvz terran favored untill mid-late game, these changes will just amplify that and screw up the matchup pretty hard, I think.
The problem with terran is not a widow mine buff, or a medivac buff, the problem is protoss. Stop whining Ret, Zerg has been dominating Terran as well. Lack of splash vs. banelings is a clear issue in that matchup. The Hellbat opening just requires Z to be a little bit more proactive. You can't just throw speedlings at the problem like Jaedong tried vs. Taeja. okay expert It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right?
Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous.
If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win).
Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level.
See my point ?
|
On July 03 2014 01:36 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:35 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power. Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument. You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem". I do have no counter argument. And I never said Protoss is not the problem. Because I'm not involved in this argument. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy.
You were pointing at a fallacy that I wasn't falling into. I only said we should slow down from our balance protesting and listen to Ret. I never said we had to believe what he says simply because he is Ret. I only said we need to actually listen to what he has to say because a professional's input is always worth listening to from the perspective of a non-professional. Simply knee-jerking into "Yeah okay Ret you idiot that's dumb go home" is bad form.
So I think you were trying to impose a fallacy upon what I was saying when it wasn't actually there. There is nothing fallacious about the statement "People should strongly consider what professional has to say" as opposed to the fallacy "Well, he's a professional so he must be right."
Considering the fact that I have a PhD in philosophy and teach it for a living, I've done a pretty good job at weeding out fallacies from my arguments and being careful not to fall into them. So I guess I'm technically a professional at not being fallacious. Though you don't really know that so it's hard for me to tell you that you should consider what I have to say instead of shouting "OHHHH FALLACY!" without looking at my language properly. Though I think it's generally bad form to do that regardless of whose argument you are looking at.
|
On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:05 Liquid`Ret wrote:On July 03 2014 01:01 DinoMight wrote:On July 03 2014 00:57 Liquid`Ret wrote:
the hellbat change already makes tvz terran favored untill mid-late game, these changes will just amplify that and screw up the matchup pretty hard, I think.
The problem with terran is not a widow mine buff, or a medivac buff, the problem is protoss. Stop whining Ret, Zerg has been dominating Terran as well. Lack of splash vs. banelings is a clear issue in that matchup. The Hellbat opening just requires Z to be a little bit more proactive. You can't just throw speedlings at the problem like Jaedong tried vs. Taeja. okay expert It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ?
If only it were so simple.
The easy way to deconstruct that argument is this:
Rock paper scissors is balanced. but rock is overpowered vs scissors, which is overpowered versus paper, which overpowers rock.
Thus if, P wins 90% of the time versus T and T win 90% of the time versus Z and Z win 90% of the time versus P, we could very well end up with an equal distribution of players in the ro16 of any given tournament, but a totally unbalanced game.
|
On July 03 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:36 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:35 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power. Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument. You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem". I do have no counter argument. And I never said Protoss is not the problem. Because I'm not involved in this argument. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy. Well, what you said is true obviously. Yet this isn't an instance of it. Ret has an argument and MichealDonovan probably implied that "people should listen to his argumentation, because a professional has a better understanding of the game. Hence his arguments are on a higher level". I mean, what he said is clearly a reference to Ret's comment. Not just some "he is a professional and everything he says should be believed" nonsense.
Listening to pros discussing balance is rarely a good idea. We could bring here a pro terran and have him say that TvZ is totally in Z favour. We could bring a P pro here and have him say that PvT is unplayable because of Bridow Infine. I'd accept only balloon's opinion. They have reasons to make their race look weaker compared to the other 2.
|
On July 03 2014 01:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:05 Liquid`Ret wrote:On July 03 2014 01:01 DinoMight wrote:On July 03 2014 00:57 Liquid`Ret wrote:
the hellbat change already makes tvz terran favored untill mid-late game, these changes will just amplify that and screw up the matchup pretty hard, I think.
The problem with terran is not a widow mine buff, or a medivac buff, the problem is protoss. Stop whining Ret, Zerg has been dominating Terran as well. Lack of splash vs. banelings is a clear issue in that matchup. The Hellbat opening just requires Z to be a little bit more proactive. You can't just throw speedlings at the problem like Jaedong tried vs. Taeja. okay expert It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ? If only it were so simple. The easy way to deconstruct that argument is this: Rock paper scissors is balanced. but rock is overpowered vs scissors, which is overpowered versus paper, which overpowers rock. Thus if, P wins 90% of the time versus T and T win 90% of the time versus Z and Z win 90% of the time versus P, we could very well end up with an equal distribution of players in the ro16 of any given tournament, but a totally unbalanced game.
This doesn't mean both data aren't related. Of course you can take the RPS into consideration but SC2 isn't simply design that one race can have 90 in one MU but only 10 in another since almost all units are used in all MU.
|
For all those citing Proleague: Its arguably the worst league to use balance statistics from. Player practice for specific opponents. All you can draw from this that Protoss has an easier time to craft a build suited to kill a specific player. And well thats a strength of P and deservedly so. P needs variety to stay viable because they can be hard countered very easily.
|
On July 03 2014 01:45 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:36 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:35 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power. Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument. You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem". I do have no counter argument. And I never said Protoss is not the problem. Because I'm not involved in this argument. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy. Well, what you said is true obviously. Yet this isn't an instance of it. Ret has an argument and MichealDonovan probably implied that "people should listen to his argumentation, because a professional has a better understanding of the game. Hence his arguments are on a higher level". I mean, what he said is clearly a reference to Ret's comment. Not just some "he is a professional and everything he says should be believed" nonsense. Listening to pros discussing balance is rarely a good idea. We could bring here a pro terran and have him say that TvZ is totally in Z favour. We could bring a P pro here and have him say that PvT is unplayable because of Bridow Infine. I'd accept only balloon's opinion.
Yeah, or we could bring in Ret and listen to him saying that Terran early and midgame is very strong, but Terran has troubles in the lategame and is overall at a disadvantage.
So, now I have evidence of a Zerg saying that Terran has certain problems against Zerg. I could add more quotes from recent Pro Opinions on matchups.
You have 0 evidence that pros in general are rather biased. Many>0. I guess you are hiddenly referring to Rain. Which is still Many>1. So the statment Listening to pros discussing balance is rarely a good idea doesn't hold.
In general: don't project your behaviour on other people and expect them to behave like you'd do in that situation.
|
On July 03 2014 01:34 Cazimirbzh wrote:TheDwf, i think you 're a bit extreme with stim...are u a bio player?^^ Show nested quote +Research time decreased to 140 seconds, down from 170.
3. In TvZ, an earlier stim timing (and by repercussion an earlier CS timing) would boost a bit the "2-bases timing into third" openings, which are currently mostly dead because they lack power against 3 hatch builds.
- 30secondes is insane^^
Why?
|
On July 03 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:36 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:35 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power. Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument. You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem". I do have no counter argument. And I never said Protoss is not the problem. Because I'm not involved in this argument. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy. Well, what you said is true obviously. Yet this isn't an instance of it. Ret has an argument and MichealDonovan probably implied that "people should listen to his argumentation, because a professional has a better understanding of the game. Hence his arguments are on a higher level". I mean, what he said is clearly a reference to Ret's comment. Not just some "he is a professional and everything he says should be believed" nonsense.
Actually, the problem people have is with Ret's implied argument that T>Z because T>Z in the early game. This interpretation was reinforced by the silly "protoss is the problem" comment.
If we take a look at the numbers, which I know you're familiar with, we see that right around the hellbat buff (albeit not strictly after), the winrates bounced less in favour of zerg. But the last results show, as they did before the hellbat buff, that terran is doing worse against Z than against P (while still underperforming against P). At the same time, Z was doing better than P, which meant that it was more likely to meet more Z than P in tournaments (as evidenced by the number of ZvZ mirrors lately). But if it's more likely to meet Z than P, terrans should bounce back a little. But this is not what happened. In consequence, to argue that T is doing badly because of P alone is simply contrary to results in the last months.
Regarding the T>Z in the early mid-game is literally to say that they have a timing there. But, as the overall winrates (around 44% in the last agiluac period) showcase, these timings fail to actually win games, or to translate into an advantage which secures a late-game win.
Btw, all of this comes from someone who believes that DK's proposed changes are useless and target wrong units.
|
On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:05 Liquid`Ret wrote:On July 03 2014 01:01 DinoMight wrote:On July 03 2014 00:57 Liquid`Ret wrote:
the hellbat change already makes tvz terran favored untill mid-late game, these changes will just amplify that and screw up the matchup pretty hard, I think.
The problem with terran is not a widow mine buff, or a medivac buff, the problem is protoss. Stop whining Ret, Zerg has been dominating Terran as well. Lack of splash vs. banelings is a clear issue in that matchup. The Hellbat opening just requires Z to be a little bit more proactive. You can't just throw speedlings at the problem like Jaedong tried vs. Taeja. okay expert It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ?
But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced.
|
On July 03 2014 01:56 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:36 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:35 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power. Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument. You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem". I do have no counter argument. And I never said Protoss is not the problem. Because I'm not involved in this argument. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy. Well, what you said is true obviously. Yet this isn't an instance of it. Ret has an argument and MichealDonovan probably implied that "people should listen to his argumentation, because a professional has a better understanding of the game. Hence his arguments are on a higher level". I mean, what he said is clearly a reference to Ret's comment. Not just some "he is a professional and everything he says should be believed" nonsense. Actually, the problem people have is with Ret's implied argument that T>Z because T>Z in the early game. This interpretation was reinforced by the silly "protoss is the problem" comment. If we take a look at the numbers, which I know you're familiar with, we see that right around the hellbat buff (albeit not strictly after), the winrates bounced less in favour of zerg. But the last results show, as they did before the hellbat buff, that terran is doing worse against Z than against P (while still underperforming against P). At the same time, Z was doing better than P, which meant that it was more likely to meet more Z than P in tournaments (as evidenced by the number of ZvZ mirrors lately). But if it's more likely to meet Z than P, terrans should bounce back a little. But this is not what happened. In consequence, to argue that T is doing badly because of P alone is simply contrary to results in the last months. Regarding the T>Z in the early mid-game is literally to say that they have a timing there. But, as the overall winrates (around 44% in the last agiluac period) showcase, these timings fail to actually win games, or to translate into an advantage which secures a late-game win. Btw, all of this comes from someone who believes that DK's proposed changes are useless and target wrong units.
That argument was not implied in any way. You're just injecting that implication on your own. He said T>Z until the mid game. If anything, this implies that "T>Z" is not true post mid game. Nothing about what he said implies T>Z always.
|
On July 03 2014 01:44 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:36 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:35 Big J wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. OK, so Ret argues why Terran is not largely disfavored in ZvT (strong early-midgame). In his last posts he even adds that Zerg may still overall be a little bit better due to lategame power. Hence, the only reason why Terran can be underperforming largely can be Protoss. Hence he has made an argument. You have no counterargument. All you did say is "no you are wrong, Protoss is not a problem". I do have no counter argument. And I never said Protoss is not the problem. Because I'm not involved in this argument. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy. I only said we need to actually listen to what he has to say because a professional's input is always worth listening to from the perspective of a non-professional. Considering the fact that I have a PhD in philosophy and teach it for a living...
So who don't you need to actually listen to? Who isn't worth listening to? Seems to me like we are a bit elitist. And fact you brought up your PHD and then went on about your credentials says exactly that, and it runs counter to what I just said, and counter to the scientific method I should add.
You should listen to everyone, which goes right back to what I said, arguments stand independent of people.
You can learn a lot from a dummy.
|
I guess if T = Taeja, then yes, T P and Z are all doing fairly evenly in recent tournament wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
