|
On July 03 2014 01:48 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:45 BronzeKnee wrote: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.
Your argument was that racial imbalance was how poorly races are distributed, not how bad a win rate was. Or in your own words.
On July 03 2014 01:48 Faust852 wrote:
Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed.
I just showed that a winrate can be god awful, but the races can be evenly distributed, and concluded it was an imbalanced game.
Do you disagree with the conclusion, question that a winrate can be awful while races are evenly distributed, or want to change your argument?
|
On July 03 2014 02:02 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:44 MichaelDonovan 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. 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. 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.
This is like arguing that putting weight in the ideas of scientifics about science is elitist.
|
On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad 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 ? 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.
Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc.
|
On July 03 2014 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:44 MichaelDonovan 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. 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. 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. This is like arguing that putting weight in the ideas of scientifics about science is elitist.
What he says is not scientific in the least bit, which is why I said it ran counter to the scientific method...
He continues to argue from point of authority, stating we should listen a bit more to Ret (or however you want to put it semantically), and I should listen a bit more to him because he has a PHD. But again, arguments are independent of people. His PHD doesn't automatically make him right, nor is Ret automatically right because he is a professional. You can silence a person, but someone else can repeat the same argument, and it changes nothing.
In 1877,[10] Charles Sanders Peirce (/ˈpɜrs/ like "purse"; 1839–1914) characterized inquiry in general not as the pursuit of truth per se but as the struggle to move from irritating, inhibitory doubts born of surprises, disagreements, and the like, and to reach a secure belief, belief being that on which one is prepared to act. He framed scientific inquiry as part of a broader spectrum and as spurred, like inquiry generally, by actual doubt, not mere verbal or hyperbolic doubt, which he held to be fruitless.[83] He outlined four methods of settling opinion, ordered from least to most successful:
1) The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to initial belief) – which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others' views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. It goes against the social impulse and easily falters since one may well notice when another's opinion is as good as one's own initial opinion. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory.[84]
2) The method of authority – which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past.
3) The method of the a priori – which promotes conformity less brutally but fosters opinions as something like tastes, arising in conversation and comparisons of perspectives in terms of "what is agreeable to reason." Thereby it depends on fashion in paradigms and goes in circles over time. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains accidental and capricious beliefs, destining some minds to doubt it.
4) The scientific method – the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
|
On July 03 2014 01:59 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:56 Ghanburighan wrote: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.
First of all, the argument was clearly taken to be implied from the responses in the thread. Second, I wasn't one of the people responding so it wasn't really my implication. And, third, the comment "The problem is Protoss" is exceedingly silly according to statistics, and I do wonder what was meant by that if not T<P, but T=Z.
|
|
|
gosh, bronzeknee, pls leave this thread
|
On July 03 2014 02:06 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:48 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:45 BronzeKnee wrote: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. Your argument was that racial imbalance was how poorly races are distributed, not how bad a win rate was. Or in your own words. Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:48 Faust852 wrote:
Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed.
I just showed that a winrate can be god awful, but the races can be evenly distributed, and concluded it was an imbalanced game. Do you disagree with the conclusion, question that a winrate can be awful while races are evenly distributed, or want to change your argument?
I was obviously responding to Nebuchad who said that both weren't correlated.
Ofc you can have a RPS representation with even number of race but poor MU by race, but this is reducing things to its simpliest. In rock paper scissor, there is only one dimension where you don't take into consideration how solid is your scissor, or if your rock has sharp edge. it's not really possible to make the game hugely imbalanced in only one MU while having the the other imbalanced on the other side. You can have slight disadvantages, but since sc2 is so well rounded, on imbalance in one MU usually has an impact on the other. That's what happens now too : terran isn't doing well in both MU.
If you read (I suppose you did) DwF's article, you would notice that each patch focus to one MU had an umpredictable effect on the other (WM used to prevent Blink for instance).
|
On July 03 2014 02:14 Terence Chill wrote:
gosh, bronzeknee, pls leave this thread
When people disagree with me, it is a sign that I am needed here to foster discussions we can all learn from.
If nothing else, it produces quality posts like yours!
|
On July 03 2014 02:16 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:14 Terence Chill wrote:
gosh, bronzeknee, pls leave this thread When people disagree with me, it is a sign that I am needed here.
or you are just against everything to gain some attention
|
"2. In terms of recent tournament wins, the three races are performing quite evenly."
In what universe you have seen this David? Like 3 terrans in ro32 of GSL, the win rate for each race is pretty much even? Have u ever read that recent article before?
|
On July 03 2014 02:09 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:44 MichaelDonovan 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. 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. 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. This is like arguing that putting weight in the ideas of scientifics about science is elitist. What he says is not scientific in the least bit, which is why I said it ran counter to the scientific method... He continues to argue from point of authority, stating we should listen a bit more to Ret, and I should listen a bit more to him because he has a PHD. But again, arguments are independent of people. You can silence a person, but someone else can repeat the same argument, and it changes nothing.
In 1877,[10] Charles Sanders Peirce (/ˈpɜrs/ like "purse"; 1839–1914) characterized inquiry in general not as the pursuit of truth per se but as the struggle to move from irritating, inhibitory doubts born of surprises, disagreements, and the like, and to reach a secure belief, belief being that on which one is prepared to act. He framed scientific inquiry as part of a broader spectrum and as spurred, like inquiry generally, by actual doubt, not mere verbal or hyperbolic doubt, which he held to be fruitless.[83] He outlined four methods of settling opinion, ordered from least to most successful:
1) The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to initial belief) – which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others' views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. It goes against the social impulse and easily falters since one may well notice when another's opinion is as good as one's own initial opinion. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory.[84]
2) The method of authority – which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past.
3) The method of the a priori – which promotes conformity less brutally but fosters opinions as something like tastes, arising in conversation and comparisons of perspectives in terms of "what is agreeable to reason." Thereby it depends on fashion in paradigms and goes in circles over time. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains accidental and capricious beliefs, destining some minds to doubt it.
4) The scientific method – the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The point is that experts in a field have more empirical information to work with (If you suppose that this is possible anyway) than non-experts do, and they are more practiced in expressing that information in an argumentative form. So in making a statement on the subject, a professional's statement has more weight behind it because it is based on a heavier collection of knowledge.
I'm going to quote a Fall Out Boy song against my better judgement: "A penny for your thoughts but a dollar for your insight." (Don't know if this line originated from Fall Out Boy but it's the only place I know it from. Also don't make fun of my tastes lets stay on point here.)
Because a statement from a professional has more knowledge behind its conception, it is more valuable than a statement from a non-professional. Again, this is only if you don't fall too deeply into epistemological-skepticism about empirical information. I don't want to get into another Descartes/The Matrix argument so let's just close that door and label it.
|
Protoss is overpowered. Disagree with me so i am needed here.
Right?
|
I think it's pretty silly to say that Z is OP in the late game therefore early game buffs to Terran won't change that.
Obviously, a huge part of the Zerg getting up the 66 banelings and 30 muta is how they play the early game. Remember these games are obviously not BGH no rush 30 minutes. If the Zerg has to spend a lot of money and larva defending something, he won't have the bank, the larva, the creep spread, and the muta flock to win in the late game...
So to say something like the Hellbat buff doesn't affect the late game is stupid in my opinion. Because every single decision that is made in an RTS impacts everything else that happens after it.
It's like saying that an engineering bay block doesn't impact the late game. Of course it does. Protoss's Nexus is delayed, hurting his economy and delaying the time at which he can take his 3rd etc.
|
On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote: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 ? 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. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc.
People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac).
|
On July 03 2014 02:09 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:44 MichaelDonovan 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. 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. 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. This is like arguing that putting weight in the ideas of scientifics about science is elitist. [...] scientific method
I'm not defending what Ret said, I think he's wrong. You're still wrong about this being elitism.
|
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.
Not really. Nowhere did he say T>Z overall. He said T>Z in the midgame, which is a question of interpretation. Terran can do some very strong pushes of 2-3 bases, which is where the biggest part of the 44% wins of Terran come from.
In a follow up post he even clarified that despite T>Z early-mid, Z>T overall.
The last periode is 44%, June overall is 48%. But in general, I rather trust in Proleague/Premier league/Premier Tournament wins.
TvZ:
Code A qualifiers are 64%.
Code S was 58% (compared to 50% TvP).
Last Code A was 44%.
Ongoing Proleague Round is 44% (first time in Zergs favor?).
Zerg has roughly as few Premier wins as Terran lately.
Zergs in next Code A+S = 19, compared to Terran=13
TvP:
Terran representation fell off due to 20% winrate two seasons ago
Code A qualifiers are 38%.
Code S was 50%.
Ongoing Proleague Round Proleague is 23%.
Last Code A was 52%.
Protoss is winning tournaments left and right since months.
Protoss in next Code A+S = 24, compared to Terran=13
I think on the toplevel it is safe to say that Protoss is doing better than Zerg against Terran. All the Z>T stats are just barely out of +/-5% and we also have some instances of T>Z. The reason why despite those somewhat even stats in winrate we should buff Terran is of course the representation.
While the possibility of 80% winrates for P>T in a tournament rather looks like there are some pretty deep issues. Especially since we don't have Terran compensating for that anywhere and the representation being even worse.
Note how aligulac also suggests Z>P, and I think we can definitely say that this isn't true at all, especially at the highest level. I guess there are some problems with aligulac (like those Australian tournaments making up for a third of its games) that make it a quite inaccurate measure for the toplevel balance, compared to directly taking tournament winrates. Though it is still a nice indication of course.
|
On July 03 2014 02:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:
So in making a statement on the subject, a professional's statement has more weight behind it because it is based on a heavier collection of knowledge.
And herein lies the piece which makes it a logical fallacy. Let me correct your statement:
On July 03 2014 02:18 MichaelDonovan should have wrote: So in making a statement on the subject, a professional's statement may have more weight behind it because it is supposedly based on a heavier collection of knowledge and he is making it without bias.
Without bias... Are you familiar with the lead expert Dr. Robert Kehoe? He went before Congress as the leading expert on lead and argued that lead in our gasoline didn't have any harmful effects. He was the expert, and he was wrong. And he was hired to protect the lead industry. Twenty years later, we took lead out of gasoline. And the reduction in lead in our environment has reduced brain damage and ADHD as well as crime and aggression.
Now don't tell me Ret doesn't have any kind of bias here... right? So hopefully people can understand why authority isn't a good way to learn anything.
Now do I believe or trust "experts" everyday? Surely. But I do so on my own when I don't want to engage in a long argument, do my own research ect...
But we are here in a forum to talk and discuss about SC2. Most of us have a pretty good understand of SC2, even if we can't play at the highest level. And If we are going to have a good discussion about this, logical fallacies shouldn't be part of it.
|
On July 03 2014 01:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:45 Karpfen wrote: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.
He said the changes would make TvZ T favoured.
Ok then pros aren't biased about their own race. They look at the game with a very rational view that is not related to them making money based on race strength. Rain would have said the same thing about TvP (mines = Bl infestor) if he played T. Also nowhere he said that overall T has a disadvantage. He said that lategame is Z favoured while early and mid are T favoured. I remember a chat back in WoL days in which DRG and MC+ some others were discussing sentry immortal. For some incredible coincidence MC was saying that they were good because you needed micro to pull them off and it takes a lot of skill not to fall for forcefield baits while DRG, defending his own race (he would have done it even if he played P, mind you ; ) ) was saying that the Z just had to hope for a P mistake and given very good execution from both side P would be victorious. Also Taeja whining protoss which again, isn't his race... Sjow publicly saying P was really broken etc.. The general attitude is this, you can try hard to discuss it accusing me of projecting my own behaviour while being a Z players that fully supports T buffs as of now. I guess it made your argument stronger on the surface but sorry, i went deeper.
You probably think the race distribution of the people saying...idk..... zerg is weak is 1:1:1. Haha.
|
On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote: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 ? 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. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac).
Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
