EPTCommunity Feedback Update - January 22 - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
| ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:05 BronzeKnee wrote: 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. Both charts are barely relevant. The first contains too many irrelevant games and the second is only based on past performance. So if you have a long period of protoss favored balanced like we've had, any correction will also show up as protoss underperformance and others overperforming. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:54 BronzeKnee wrote: 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. Did Seed not 3-0 Bomber? Did Classic not 2-0 aLive? Was it all just a bad dream, BronzeKnee? Or did the state of the game actually cause numerous PvT blowouts off the back of Adept harassment? 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? 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. You know what happens if Blizz tries -1 and it isn't enough? They have to try -2 next, because it's JUST change enough to possibly make a difference without impacting anything else. That means we wait on another patch. You know what happens if -2 then turns out not to be enough, either? They have to come up with another solution. We wait on yet another patch. You know what happens if Blizz tried -2 and it was too much? Change to -1, no need for PTR, patch the game. You know what happens if Blizz tried -2 and it wasn't enough? They have to come up with another solution. They're one full patch ahead of schedule. 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. Protoss will very likely need compensatory buffs in TvP, and without a shred of doubt in PvZ. No way to know what kind of buffs until we see a normal early game develop, however. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:|Precisely, if you declare that a line of reasoning is logically fallacious, you have to back up that argument. My mistake. I should have pointed it out more obviously. His fallacy was the burden of proof: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof He claimed that -1 was non-sensical, then offered no evidence why. I called him out on that. Additionally, his other fallacy was anecdotal evidence... based on his experience TvP was great imbalanced. This does not match up with the statistical winrats. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal And his post above is exactly the same thing, anecdotal evidence. The winrate for in PvT in the GSL is 50/50 but he is cherry picking the game Terran lost as evidence that there is a problem. Granted he switch his argument and is now claiming that winrate doesn't matter, it is about the games themselves. But that was not his initial argument. The funny thing is, him and I agree on where the game needs to go =) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:10 Dangermousecatdog 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? Well if it's impossible to prove, then it shouldn't be asserted. You're basically asking me to accept a claim that hasn't been proven because it can't be proven... That's not how it works. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:08 Nebuchad wrote: Does it shock you that they're the ones with no evidence to back up their claim and he's the one stalling? Can you prove that? _________ SSL figures and the current Dreamhack figures have been mentioned already in this thread and provide some support for pure.Wasted. Plus, assuming you watch the game regularly, the games themselves can provide proof for either side. I dunno, to me it seems like no matter where you fall on this issue, you'd have to admit that both sides have proof. As for pure.Wasted's opinion on the -1 attack nerf. I disagree with it. I think that -1 is probably enough and when combined with the overcharge nerf will make Protoss the weakest race. But asking him to provide proof for a speculation is a bit, uh, silly. On January 24 2016 09:15 Nebuchad wrote: Well if it's impossible to prove, then it shouldn't be asserted. Literally everything is 'impossible to prove', including this statement. You cannot even 'prove' that 2+2 = 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel This guy got kinda famous for pointing that out. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:15 Nebuchad wrote: Exactly! Glad you worked it out.Well if it's impossible to prove, then it shouldn't be asserted. You're basically asking me to accept a claim that hasn't been proven because it can't be proven... That's not how it works. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Exactly! Glad you worked it out. So why are you arguing the opposite? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:16 Bohemond wrote: Literally everything is 'impossible to prove', including this statement. You cannot even 'prove' that 2+2 = 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel This guy got kinda famous for pointing that out. Of course you can prove 2+2=4. You just have to define clearly enough what you mean by 2, by +, by =, and by 4. Given that we have a pretty well-defined and clear picture of what we're talking about here, this line of attack is nonsensical. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:25 Nebuchad wrote: Of course you can prove 2+2=4. You just have to define clearly enough what you mean by 2, by +, by =, and by 4. Given that we have a pretty well-defined and clear picture of what we're talking about here, this line of attack is nonsensical. My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'. I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation. As an aside, you might want to go collect your Nobel Prize for disproving Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:15 BronzeKnee wrote: My mistake. I should have pointed it out more obviously. His fallacy was the burden of proof: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof He claimed that -1 was non-sensical, then offered no evidence why. I called him out on that. Additionally, his other fallacy was anecdotal evidence... based on his experience TvP was great imbalanced. This does not match up with the statistical winrats. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal And his post above is exactly the same thing, anecdotal evidence. The winrate for in PvT in the GSL is 50/50 but he is cherry picking the game Terran lost as evidence that there is a problem. Granted he switch his argument and is now claiming that winrate doesn't matter, it is about the games themselves. But that was not his initial argument. The funny thing is, him and I agree on where the game needs to go =) So I'm cherry-picking by proving the claim "Terrans get 3-0'd by Protoss"... by showing games where Protoss 3-0 Terrans... Right. I'm sorry, did I at some point state, without noticing, that every Protoss 3-0's every Terran all of the time? I mean, it's either that, or you've been arguing against a made up strawman for two pages while throwing the book of logical fallacies at everyone else. And boy, that would be silly. | ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1653 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:16 Bohemond wrote: Can you prove that? _________ SSL figures and the current Dreamhack figures have been mentioned already in this thread and provide some support for pure.Wasted. Plus, assuming you watch the game regularly, the games themselves can provide proof for either side. I dunno, to me it seems like no matter where you fall on this issue, you'd have to admit that both sides have proof. As for pure.Wasted's opinion on the -1 attack nerf. I disagree with it. I think that -1 is probably enough and when combined with the overcharge nerf will make Protoss the weakest race. But asking him to provide proof for a speculation is a bit, uh, silly. I appreciate what you're saying, but I'd like to point out that I never said that "-1 probably won't be enough." I just think it's a waste of time to test when we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing -2 instead. If -2 is too much, then we know that -1 has to be the magic number without spending a week on the PTR. If -1 isn't enough, then we learn nothing at all other than "-1 isn't enough." | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On January 24 2016 10:27 cheekymonkey wrote: Adepts are not a problem only in the early game vs T. Adepts scale well in the midgame, even when marines have combat shield. Mass adept compositions are overly cost-efficient against bio, and this nerf does not change that at all. Blizzard has not seen this problem therefore 1) you are wrong, and 2) you should feel bad. The hope is obviously that with weaker Adepts and weaker PO, Terrans will suffer less eco damage and actually be able to put some on Protoss, meaning there will always be more bio/fewer Adepts on the map. We'll see how that works out with -1. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On January 24 2016 10:02 pure.Wasted wrote: I appreciate what you're saying, but I'd like to point out that I never said that "-1 probably won't be enough." I just think it's a waste of time to test when we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing -2 instead. If -2 is too much, then we know that -1 has to be the magic number without spending a week on the PTR. If -1 isn't enough, then we learn nothing at all other than "-1 isn't enough." I misunderstood. My mistake. Also, that's very reasonable. Uh, I mean, provide proof of that!!!! | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:33 Bohemond wrote: My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'. I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation. As an aside, you might want to go collect your Nobel Prize for disproving Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem. You don't understand the premise of Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem. It only states that the axioms cannot be proven to logically true for all axioms. So 2+2=4 can be mathematically logically true as mathematical symbols are not axioms nor does it include all axioms. It does include an axiom. My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'. I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation. ...I need to provide proof that I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation. | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
On January 24 2016 10:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You don't understand the premise of Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem. It only states that the axioms cannot be proven to logically true for all axioms. So 2+2=4 can be mathematically logically true as mathematical symbols are not axioms nor does it include all axioms. It does include an axiom. My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'. I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation. ...I need to provide proof that I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation. Well, you don't understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem either. | ||
|
PinheadXXXXXX
United States897 Posts
On January 24 2016 10:27 cheekymonkey wrote: Adepts are not a problem only in the early game vs T. Adepts scale well in the midgame, even when marines have combat shield. Mass adept compositions are overly cost-efficient against bio, and this nerf does not change that at all. My hope is that this will change as Protoss builds are forced to be safer, and Terrans enter the midgame having dealt more damage and taken less. But if that doesn't happen then TvP will stay a horrible matchup, even if it's balanced. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On January 24 2016 10:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You don't understand the premise of Gödel's The Incompleteness Theorem. It only states that the axioms cannot be proven to logically true for all axioms. So 2+2=4 can be mathematically logically true as mathematical symbols are not axioms nor does it include all axioms. It does include an axiom. My brain hurts. Do yourself a favor and go look up the term 'axiom'. I'm outta here, I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation. ...I need to provide proof that I'll probably contract a horrible disease if I continue this conversation. What does the premise have to do with anything? The only point I was making is that even something as basic as arithmetic requires assumptions be made that aren't provable using arithmetic. As I've stated before, albeit with different words than I'm using now, what I was getting at was the fact that BronzeKnee was just asking for proof over and over for things that either didn't require proof or didn't matter. Not to mention the constant use of the fallacy fallacy. I dunno why you're trying to get clever and making poor attempts at hoisting me on my own petard. I wasn't even talking to you. | ||
| ||
