EPTCommunity Feedback Update - January 22 - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:13 TheWinks wrote: Aligulac also said that blink era TvP was balanced. Your reality only exists on paper, not in the real world. It was, in terms of win rate. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:36 CheddarToss wrote: And are you worried about Liberators ruining the game? Yes. We won't know if this is true until the Adept and PO are fixed, however. They allow for such low skill, high damage harass, that from Protoss perspective the unit is just terrible. You at least have to micro Adepts, Liberators are just a shift-click affair. But thanks to ridiculous range and damage, you either have to have half a dozen blink stalkers or a phoenix out just to stop 1 Liberator from blocking your mineral line or killing a ton of probes in 2 seconds. So much damage for such a low APM and resource cost. Oracles are still worse. They take more control during harassment, but have much stronger game-ending potential and can't be countered by simply being map aware and running your workers away. Do you have any ideas for how Liberators can be made worse for harassment without impacting their role in late game engagements? | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24202 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:36 Bohemond wrote: I mean, if you call endless fallacious appeals to logical fallacies and misuse of the concept of burden of proof, along with a healthy mix of uncalled for insults, a rational and honest argument. Then. Yeah. Sure. Also, I didn't put forth a position or create stagnation. I just made an observation. The stagnation was here long before I arrived. As Nebuchad already answered it, I'll just be repeating, but I like to repeat things when I am right. I made a claim that TvP was balanced and supported it with cold, hard, cash... I mean facts. You made a claim I was being fallacious, then had no support. pure.Wasted is "worried" the Adept nerf won't be enough, with no support, naturally. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:39 Nebuchad wrote: Then criticize the arguments that he put forward. If you believe that they're fallacious, you can totally do that. What you can't do is argue that evidence doesn't matter to the credibility of your argument, and as such you don't need to put it forward. On January 24 2016 08:36 Bohemond wrote: It is actually an excellent point, if a little thought goes into understanding it. Swoosh. I did not, in any way, argue that evidence does not matter. You made a claim I was being fallacious, then had no support. I pointed out a logical fallacy you made and was even kind enough to name it. On January 24 2016 08:48 BronzeKnee wrote: Good sir, you did not. But you criticized those who did, which suggest you do not think evidence matters. Please correct yourself. No, you either aren't capable or aren't willing to understand what I was getting at. I stated it explicitly. I dunno what more I can do for you. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
But you criticized those who did, which suggest you do not think evidence matters. Please correct yourself. On January 24 2016 08:46 Bohemond wrote: No, you either aren't capable or aren't willing to understand what I was getting at. I stated it explicitly. I dunno what more I can do for you. Let's just say I'm dumb and end it there. That conversation doesn't interest me at all. You made a funny. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I might as well claim Bronzeknee line of reasoning this entire thread is a logical fallacy. Disagree with me? Prove it. It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it. Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:46 BronzeKnee wrote: As Nebuchad already answered it, I'll just be repeating, but I like to repeat things when I am right. I made a claim that TvP was balanced and supported it with cold, hard, cash... I mean facts. You made a claim I was being fallacious, then had no support. pure.Wasted is "worried" the Adept nerf won't be enough, with no support, naturally. I don't need to support the idea that Adept nerf won't be enough, because that wasn't my claim. My claim was that Blizzard's patching process sucks and going all in on "-1" solving all their problems is nonsensical, when starting with -2 would have been entirely risk free and would have solved every issue (or brought us much closer to a solution if even that isn't enough of a nerf). My support for Blizzard's patching process sucking was LotV, my support for testing -2 being risk free was that it's a lot easier to predict the effects of a -1 nerf if we've already seen the current version and -2, so this change can be made with minimal time wasted, but predicting -2 when we only know -1 is a lot harder and requires further PTR that further wastes valuable time. Please follow along. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:12 pure.Wasted wrote: ...after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? On January 24 2016 08:12 pure.Wasted wrote: That's great, except I'm a lot more concerned with the state of the game than I am with balance numbers. The fact that Seed vs Bomber, or Classic vs aLive, is able to happen the way it did is wrong even if Terran is winning 90% vs Protoss's 10%. It will never not be wrong. So... which is it? Is it the state of the game or are you worried about Terran losing? Those are mutually exclusive statements, my win rate response was to the first comment you made. You can't change what you said to damn my argument, royalweed tried that yesterday. Why is -1 for Adepts nonsensical? That is the claim you are making, support it! Your support was stating how you weren't sure it if was enough because Protoss could get a Forge and upgrade. That isn't a lot of evidence, instead why not spend some time in the unit tester and prove that -1 is nonsensical? Then I'd have no answer, and maybe you could actually change the direction of how Blizzard balances the game! I'm all for an Adept and PO nerf as a Protoss player. I just want compensatory buffs so Protoss winrate doesn't entirely tank, that is all. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
That's incorrect. If you kept track of the number of games played and results, it was clear when things went wrong. With GSL stats, blink stalkers pushed the number of terrans in the GSL to record low numbers, and while the remaining few terrans had OK winrates, this was attributed to excellent terrans meeting mediocre protoss. When the terrans reached higher in the brackets and were paired up with better opposition, they lost as well. But, naturally, during the culling, PvT stats showed a clear imbalance. The trend was reversed when T numbers were low enough. Aligulac showed none of this, of course, due to the nature of the statistics there. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:53 Nebuchad wrote: It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it. Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments? What Mr. Danger is talking about is called argumentum ad logicam. I already pointed it out. I can't prove it to you or anyone. You just have to figure it out for yourself based on what's in front of you. I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:01 Ghanburighan wrote: That's incorrect. If you kept track of the number of games played and results, it was clear when things went wrong. With GSL stats, blink stalkers pushed the number of terrans in the GSL to record low numbers, and while the remaining few terrans had OK winrates, this was attributed to excellent terrans meeting mediocre protoss. When the terrans reached higher in the brackets and were paired up with better opposition, they lost as well. But, naturally, during the culling, PvT stats showed a clear imbalance. The trend was reversed when T numbers were low enough. Aligulac showed none of this, of course, due to the nature of the statistics there. You're making a lot of assumption there. If your inferences were correct, then during GomTvT Protoss would have had a 50/50 win rate versus Terran. They did not. August 2011 was the height of TvT, 47% winrate for Protoss. But the real evidence to disprove your theory is the second chart on the balance report. I asked for that chart long ago, because it shows performance differences. This may shock you, but it correlates quite closely to winrates, but collects data in matter that corrects for skill. In August 2011, Protoss was -71, today they are -52. In 2011 Terran was +51, today +11. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ Not a shocker that Protoss is underperforming right now, and that Terran is performing better than expected. | ||
|
CheddarToss
534 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:44 pure.Wasted wrote: Yes. We won't know if this is true until the Adept and PO are fixed, however. Oracles are still worse. They take more control during harassment, but have much stronger game-ending potential and can't be countered by simply being map aware and running your workers away. Do you have any ideas for how Liberators can be made worse for harassment without impacting their role in late game engagements? Oracles are problematic, but almost useless in a straight up engagement. Liberators are awesome at almost any roll. The versatility of Liberators is the real problem. I've said this before, but it doesn't make sense to have siege units, which are fast and mobile. Collosi were terrible for the game for this exact reason. And as we see, tankivacs are ruining TvT and will probably start to ruin TvP on some maps (think of 1/1/1 Version 2.0). Liberators should therefore keep their speed and mobility but be toned down in regards to damage and range or they should have reduced speed and a longer transformation time, but keep their damage and range. At present they are just too well rounded. As for Adepts: I think that you are underestimating just how huge the upcoming damage nerf is. -1 damage sounds like nothing, but effectively it's like nerfing Adept dps by a 1/3 vs Marines and SCVs, Terran's two most important units. The nerf is also very elegant, because it reduces or potentially fixes the problem, without making Adepts too weak in later stages of the game. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:04 Bohemond wrote: What Mr. Danger is talking about is called argumentum ad logicam. I already pointed it out. I can't prove it to you or anyone. You just have to figure it out for yourself based on what's in front of you. I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest. Does it shock you that they're the ones with no evidence to back up their claim and he's the one stalling? | ||
|
ProtossMasterRace
57 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:53 Nebuchad wrote: |Precisely, if you declare that a line of reasoning is logically fallacious, you have to back up that argument. It doesn't make sense to ask someone to prove an opinion on a balance change as there exists not enough information to do so. By demanding proof and to declare that it is a logical fallacy to not be able to prove an issue is a line of reasoning that is a logical fallacy in itself. Ironic right? Wasted never declared that -1 damage wouldn't be enough, but Bronzeknee created a strawman, declared it a logical fallacy and declared that the onus of proof would be not upon himself to prove that it was indeed a logical fallacy. Clever is it not?It's the opposite actually. You're the one who has to prove it. Why is it so hard for people to understand that they're the ones supposed to back up their arguments? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:04 Bohemond wrote: I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest. So all I need to do is say that Smurfs live on the moon, and when someone asks for proof, I tell them they are stalling? Goes against everything science is based on, but sounds fun! | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:05 BronzeKnee wrote: You're making a lot of assumption there. If your inferences were correct, then during GomTvT Protoss would not have had a 50/50 win rate versus Terran. They did not. But the real evidence to disprove your theory is the second chart on the balance report. I asked for that chart long ago, because it shows performance differences. This may shock you, but it correlates quite closely to winrates, but collects data in matter that corrects for skill. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ Not a shocker that Protoss is underperforming right now, and that Terran is performing better than expected. I literally can't parse your sentences, I think you messed up with negation somehow. Anyway, GomTvT wasn't balanced, and looking carefully enough, this became clear. As for the balance report that you like to quote, it shows less than nothing about balance. This has been discussed to death, so I'll refer you to the large number of discussions on TeamLiquid that explain why that is. I'm not one for being a broken record. Good night. | ||
| ||
