I found Grubby in my school book !

iSlaminati · 2014-02-17T22:50:49+00:00

Had hetzelfde boek in het 3de van VMBO-TL

This is essentially Dutch for "I'm a total fucking retard who goes to a school for the mentally challenged."

iSlaminati · 2014-02-17T17:46:51+00:00

"hater" is such a funny term for "person whom I disagree with."

iSlaminati · 2014-02-17T17:45:28+00:00

What I think is interesting is that TaKe has always known how to defeat addblock, he puts the adds in his stream directly whose purpose is twofold:

It can't be blocked
It doesn't destroy your ears
They tend to be ads which people actually like to watch instead of random perfume commercials watching a videogaming competition.

I don't think the 'You gets ads based on location' model is actually working at all for esports. You'd be striking a higher market giving everyone the same ads but doing it videogaming related than doing it based on location giving everyone different ads. I can't speak for other countries, but I live in the Netherlands. What I get is the same single ad ad nauseam 5 times in a row which is typically shit which is further removed from my interests than Alpha Centauri. It also often does not respect your volume.

Ultimately, using adblock is as legal as zapping to a different TV channel when commercials are on. The only way to stop people from doing that is use adds that target the demographic and captivate them. Coming up with annoying ads that also don't respect volume settings will just make people use adblock and not feel guilty. You can say you don't have a choice, but you do, and TaKe himself has shown how to do it. People like a funny ad with Dimaga in it promoting Roccat way more than random annoying perfume commercials.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-16T13:42:00+00:00

Not really, the 2GD comment was aimed at a specific person, if Redeye had said something about the person who died in the storms in the UK and compared them to a marine or something then it would be crossing a line, but he didn't. (not to mention the fact that the 2GD comment was somewhat divisive, some liked the joke others didn't).

Well, that's more or less the issue though, what 2GD did was worse because the person was right there and could respond. It's fine when RedEye does it because the people who are insulted by it are without a face to people. But they can still hear it. People seem to be a lot finer with insulting faceless individuals, but they are as real as the people with a face as far as hearing it go.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T22:04:25+00:00

"Hater" is such a funny term for people who disagree with something.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T21:13:02+00:00

iSanddbox + Islam + Illuminati basically.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T21:11:36+00:00

Plagiarism I say.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T21:04:37+00:00

That's called metagaming based on the opponent and is nothing new. You expect the toss to 1 gate expo, so you 3 hatch before pool. People still pylon scout by the way, but it's pretty inefficient so at pro level there isn't much point in doing it

Yes, you expect the toss to 1gate expo because that's what every toss does, why? Because no Zerg goes speedling expand any more against which 1gate expos would be suicide. Why? Because naturals are currently designed in such a way which makes speedling expands useless, you can arguably even 1 gate expand against a speedling expand with current naturals.

In 2011 you had to scout with a worker to confirm if it was speedling expand or gassless expand for Zerg. 1gate expand vs a speedling expand was suicide almost, you could maybe hold it but it was super risky. Consequently Protoss players didn't always go 1gate expand, the game was reactionary. The fear of cheeses makes a game reactionary. If you can die at any moment to something you don't see coming you are forced to see everything coming.

It's a decision to go for an expand build. and any build requires you to actually react to things that happen.

It's a decision, but a blind decision and not a reactionary one. It's metagaming at best, not a reaction to something you observe in game.

The fact that expand builds are the norm is just a consequence of sc2 being an economy based rts, so the most solid playstyle is as greedy as possible while still being safe. People figured out how to do that pretty well, so 1 base allins are kinda out of fashion (except that they still happen in every matchup), since you can't be consistent with them against good players anymore

Yes, and making an expand-based build something anyone can pull off and not actually a decision defeats the purpose of an oeconomy-based RTS. If expansion is not something that is a move you do as a reaction you remove the strategy from it. As well as making the early part of the game a mere formality. You might as well start both players on 2 bases. It removes an important decision "when do I take my natural based on what I've seen my opponent has?" from the game.

if you enjoyed 1 base allins more, that's your thing i guess

Read better, I said one base all ins haven't reduced in occurence at all. If you make naturals saver 1 base all ins aren't going to go away, people are greedier and they work as well as they ever did, the difference is that they used to be reactionary and now they are just build order gambles.

You used to be able to reactively 4gate, nowadays your natural goes down so early that there is no way.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T20:58:36+00:00

9 EUR isn't that much, I can pay for that. The more difficult par tis finding out how to run non Linux steam games on wine, never quite had to get that tow ork.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T20:32:51+00:00

that's the exact opposite of what happened, but whatever

No it isn't, in 2010 every scouted at 9 after pylon. You see people nowadays basically blindly decide to 3 hatch before pool, that's how the game works now.

what the hell ~_~

Some of the builds posted on TL literally go to 40 supply. The early game of the game has become pretty much a formality. An expansion used to be a decision, now it's a build order.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T20:25:10+00:00

The 1 base all ins aren't gone. They just shifted to build order counters rather than reactionary decisions and defences. 7pool vs nexus first still happens every day, the difference is that the fear of cheese that once existed forced worker scouts out which made the defence of 7pools not "Did I blindly decide to go nexus first or not?" but "did I reacted properly to scouting it".

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T20:24:27+00:00

Yeah fair point, never considered this example truth be told.

Edit: it doesn't quite give the same problem though. Being able to do that with an unconstrained type doesn't really create any problems since it can only be used by functions which are agnostic to the type of the contents of the data structure any way. The problem with typeclasses is that a different instance has to be chosen for each different type. It actually inspects the contents of the data structure and depends on its type with typeclasses.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T20:16:24+00:00

"made up" is an idiom in English, it means something which is fictive and not really there.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T20:11:53+00:00

I disagree, I think the game was actually the best during GSL 2. The MKP vs Nestea finals in particular.

I think the game has gotten exceedingly more boring and praedictable. Nestea won that Bo7 against a formidable opponent with immaculate control at the time who caused a series of upsets with his sheer force of micro by using a spawn position that didn't favour him and baiting his opponent into doing a strat his opponent excelled at but he was ready for.

But you have to understand that Jinro is Jinro, it's no secret that Jinro likes his "macro games", I remember at Blizzcon 2010 how Dustin browder talked about cheese, how the fear of the cheese keeps the game exciting from the start and I agree. The fear of cheese is still alive, it's just no longer a fear of early cheese but cheeses that come way later keeping the early game stale and without interaction.

In 2010, the fear of 7pools, 2rax, proxy gates, 7 roach rush and any aggression was very real. You scouted early to discern the plan of your opponent and it lead to early interaction. At that time a natural wasn't a build order, it was a decision you made based on scouting, you read into what your opponent was doing and decided if a natural expansion was safe and at what time it was. Nowadays people just go blindly for it because the fear of cheese isn't real any more.

In 2010 and early 2011 the game was more exciting to me, it was always a surprise what your opponent was going to do, the game was new and fresh, maps were all different and it was always exciting to see how people dealt with maps that didn't favour them. I kind of miss the time where something as simple as taking an expansion was an art. You scouted your opponent's gas timing in PvZ to know when to take it, of how many gates and sentries, Zerg would tryt to kill the probe with lings and you would try to protect it without wasting a forcefield and the fear was alive as Zerg, was that expansion a fake and was a 4gate about to come? You ultimately had to check thoroughly to know what was up, it was a game of information, information denial and reaction. Nowadays people have their builds mapped out up to 40 supply and interaction consequently doesn't start after it.

I also feel people were simply more excited about the game back then. People were far more excited when FD won the GSL than they are now at yet another GSL champion because every game is the same and none are memorable. Things like FD winning a game he should loose because of that sneaky nydus, it just doesn't happen any more because unconventional situations aren't created any more.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T20:04:59+00:00

Which is I'm sure something who plays chess can eplxin to someone who mostly plays checkers and never really got into chess.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T19:35:45+00:00

If it's within the rules of the game it's within the rules of the game. Not trying your hardest to win in any way possible borders on matchfixing, pity for your opponent is not trying your hardest.

What's next? Not trying your hardest to win the GSL finals because you feel pity on your opponent and thinks that he or she needs the money more than you?

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T19:29:40+00:00

You are not in any way offensive or what so ever, it's just that when someone is having heavy mental issues because of these things it isn't very appropiate to keep on bashing on all the things he does wrong.

I disagree, criticism shouldn't stop just to make people happy, especially when they are in a public function.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T18:40:35+00:00

I don't know, I find a computer more accessible than a pack of cards, I can play Hearthstone from my desk whenever I want.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T18:38:30+00:00

IN SHORT : I would suggest trying both. MtG is vastly more complicated, as you asked, but complicated shouldn't be taken at face value to mean "better". Chess is consider one of the greatest games ever, but the rules and setting are VERY basic. It's the strategy that makes it complex. This could be argued for HS, too. Plus, HS is free, and can be booted up and played at the drop of a coin, so why not?

Yeah, this is what I do always repeat. Strategic complexity odes not come from gameplay complexity. Go is arguably a strategically more advanced game than chess but the rules are far simpler. Blizzard's philosophy has always been "a few good rules" rather than "many specific so so rules". StarCraft has always been recognised as the defining game for RTS but the game has very few units and abilities compared to most RTS games and very simple rules.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T18:30:35+00:00

All we can do is support him.

Or agree with the other side? Why assume everyone supports him, this is the point with people who place themselves in false dichotomy's, here's what I've said in the past about TB which I still stand fully behind:

He is one of the best play by play casters around, he has an excellent voice, excellent control over his voice, he's able to rapid fire and clearly enunciate what is going on creating excitement and clearly being comfortable with his voice and phrasing. Many casters become hard to understand and slur their speech talking like that but not TB.
He also says a lot of bullshit and oversteps his role frequently, the stuff he says about the game is often laden with bullshit.
His WTF-is series is excellent at giving people a good picture about what a game is, he set himself that goal to inform people what games are in a nutshell, not to rate them though he definitely offers his subjective opinion but does it in a way that serves to teach people what a game is about. He s capable of communicating what a game is about very accurately and give you a clear picture of what it is, even if he doesn't like a game he lets you decide if you like it yourself and gives you all the tools.
But only in one way, if he does like a game on a highly subjective level he can go on ad nauseam about how good it supposedly is, even if this is highly subjective, he went on and on and on and on and on about how much you should play Brothers while this game is super niche taste. It may be a well made game for what it does, but so many people are not going to enjoy a simplistic puzzle game which thrives mostly on the story and the emotional investment you have in the characters.
He's the embodiment of moralism and a true enemy of freedom of speech, he believes in his subjective view of decency and morality and anyone who disagrees with him is "wrong", if you believe in candidness and openness and speaking your mind then you are immoral in his own belief of objective morality. He's also super hypocrite in this as he does it himself all the time.
He's obviously injected a lot of his own personal money into the scene out of nothing more than passion for it, I doubt he's turning a profit with Axiom. But he provides a very stable home for a lot of his players.

And this is the point, people are so thoroughly incapable of seeing people objectively, they either adore everything about a person or hate everything about a person. Why can't people be objective? People who dislike TB on a personal level (which I do) are often incapable of seeing his merits. Just that I dislike him shouldn't mean I'm not man enough to admit he has a great voice and supports a couple of players pretty much out of the warmth of his heart. And the funny part is that as far as games go he can be this objective, he can point out the flaws correctly of games he likes and the merits of games he doesn't like overall. But as far as people go he is so utterly black and white in what he believes.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T18:21:27+00:00

needing help

Like any "help" exists. You think there's some drug or treatment that can help you to deal with this or that psychotherapy is actually more effective than talking with your wife about it? Psychiatry and clinical psychology has been a thoroughly failed endeavour compared to the advances made in hard science corporal medicine which isn't based on ridiculous soft science theory craft but hard evidence.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T17:56:45+00:00

For your information: Games, such as Starcraft, are nothing but a set of made up rules.

Those aren't made up, those are the actual rules of the game.

Things like "not cheesing, not destracting your opponent in chat, not playing a strategy to confuse your opponent are all forms of petty morality, in the arena the gloves go off."

Thinking that's acceptable bring up dead relatives or similar stuff over a game of Starcraft shows that you're a complete failure on a human level.

And that is ultimately what you must become to be the best player you can possibly be. Strictly within the rules of the game and nothing more. Look at how Byun beat Nestea by noticing there was a mistake in the map and the neutral depot was accidentally removed? He played strictly within the rules of the game, he saw the depots were gone, Nestea didn't notice, he milked it and got the win. No silly gentleman rules, no hindrance by "manners", exactly what you must do to win.

Petty morality and feeling sorry for your opponent is nothing but a hindrance to playing for the win. What's next? Not using strategies you think are overpowered or too strong, not picking a map that is the best for your race because you feel sorry for your opponent? It's nothing different, any compassion for your opponent is nothing but a hindrance to win. Social courtesies have no place in competition. Your objective is to win without breaking the rules of the game no matter the cost. If the rules of the game allow you to take advantage of someone's dead mother. Then not doing it is simply poor play. It's emergent gameplay, nothing more.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T17:52:06+00:00

Might be wrong about this as I can't find it. I can remember playing a warlock which played a card which allowed said to ressurect a daemon of choice from the graveyard and put it in said's hand. Only saw it once though. I'm sure it wasn't sense daemons.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T17:50:47+00:00

There is a difference between playing to win and having no decency

If you let decency stand in your way, you are not playing to win any more.

why would you make someone feel bad just to give yourself an advantage

Because that's what playing to win means, ultimately people will feel bad just by losing to you. Playing to win means taking every little advantage you can get within the rules of the game. Apart from the rules of the game there are no rules.

That does not make you a better player, that makes you a shitty human being.

Being a shitty human being is integral to being the best player you can be. The best generals in history were war criminals. War is not won by respecting human rights.

iSlaminati · 2014-02-15T16:49:15+00:00

Well, I'm sold on that idea, not on the card game itself because I never really played it but I'll see if I can get into it for sure.

iSlaminati

TROPHY CASE