Видео

I appreciate it! Hope you had a nice holiday period

dayum got me there! Happy holidays!

Thank you very much for the compliment and for watching! Glad you enjoyed the cast :D

@@riquizcasts I really did. Looking forward to the next.

Mostly because getting them is very expensive and are difficult to use compared to fe. vipers. Usually zergs are already getting a hive anyways, so getting a few vipers is convenient and they can help in direct fights AND with drops. Spire takes a very long time to build (remnant from the WoL/HotS era), is quite expensive and then making enough mutas/corruptors do deal with MOSTLY just drops is also more expensive than making vipers. (8 marines don't scoop to a few mutas unless you have lings there as well, or like 16+ mutas) We did see some corruptor styles back in the day with roach corruptor and/or ling bane ultra corruptor where the corruptors help clean up medivacs/liberators in main fights as well - but they have been out of the meta for a bit now. TL:DR more expensive AND harder to execute, but definitely more stylish and cool

RIGHT!? Especially on the longer rush distance maps (for reapers) it just allows for 0 ling openers (or sending your lings across the map instead of keeping them at home)!

Yeah he looked really good until GuMiho started doing a really sick job punishing by denying Clem the extra bases!

Can't wait for his Darth Vader arc tbh

Yeah totally my bad, thanks for correcting! I knew there could be a discrepancy between the current size and the historic size based on the math you provided and wrongly assumed it would come out bigger because of how chonky the ultralisk felt ^^'

I'm not sure what you a refering to but if I offended you in some way I am sorry. In dutch the pronouns are always gendered so I have some difficulties using correct pronouns in english 100% of the time whilst speaking.

@riquizcasts no need to apologize, I'm from America, and I thought you were getting politically correct to cater to the alphabet people

HomeStory Cup 26! liquipedia. net/starcraft2/HomeStory_Cup/26

@ thanks bro. At this rate, we might be having StarCraft in real life here in America. We have drones following orbs all around the country. Definitely some crazy shit going on!

@@obsidi2 Keenly observed! This exact thing will happen in the games between Clem & Serral as well! (Video releases tomorrow sorry) Thank you for sharing with us! I hadn't quite figured out this dynamic myself yet ^^´

@@machineelf9459 we try to have fun here ^^"

Haha glad that I'm timing out my videos correctly :) I'm boring, I like the dragoon ^^'

Happy you enjoyed it :)

Glad you enjoyed!!!

I'm very happy to hear you enjoyed my casting :) !

No replays :(

very glad you did :)

thank you!

It's StarCraft 2. My pleasure ;)

We can mix our RTS with some armchair philosophy no? Bonus question first! I've recently played: SC2, SC1, Stormgate Beta, C&C 3, Rogue Command Demo, Battle Aces Beta Do I play any of them actively (for unemployed me that is basically daily)? Not really. I play starcrafts with friends and C&C 3 I am playing my way through the campaigns for casual fun. I try all the RTS beta's I get access to; but have yet to be impressed by any of them (I'll play ZeroSpace Beta and Tempest Rising Beta for the first time very soon). --- As for morality - holy moly that is a big nut to crack. My mind jumps towards lots of things such as the trolley problem, star trek, 'what gets measured goes up' and bioshock/atlas shrugged to name a few examples. I have no strong opinions on the matter, but I seem to come back to the system-thinking I also presented with our short discussion on free-will. Whatever is considered 'right/good' or 'bad/evil' depends on the context. In most cases that means societal norms and ideas that are generally accepted. For example, a deity or god being a thing that existed and we had to worship or at least acknowledge in some way - is an accepted idea in parts of the world and used to be a basic truth in people's lifes thousands of years ago (i'm heavily paraphrasing ofc). Whatever they considered to be moral and immortal behavior or actions etc were probably grounded in their circumstances. ~40 year lifespans with relatively low literacy rates among the populous and most of the workings of the world being an unknown? They probably weren't as concerned about the environment of the planet as some of us try to be nowadays. Most of them didn't even have a reasonable way of knowing anything about it! With that preamble I have a simple example to illustrate parts of my thinking: Thousands of years ago people burned up coal to stay warm and cook their food. Nowadays people burn up coal to stay warm, power our industries and sometimes even cook our food over it. (excluding the 3rd world countries for a bit - can't keep listing exceptions) I would say that burning up coal in a 1st world country is (becoming) an immoral thing since we know the impact it has on the environment and alternatives are available - especially in domestic use. I would say that burning up coal thousands of years ago to keep your family alive is not very immoral. This example isn't perfect, but does reveal an interesting pillar of morality when it comes to humans. Self-preservation. The instinct to self-preserve and reproduce has been baked into our DNA and is a pretty useful quality for a species if it wants to stand the test of time. Therefore I feel like we are very accepting to the idea that keeping people alive, keeping ones self alive etc are almost always good. In my previous example you maybe already felt that it wasnt a totally fair comparison! Since one party was struggling to stay alive and the other party was not. Which is probably also why this is one situation where 'immoral' actions can be excused. Killing is usually accepted as an immoral action. But call it self-defence and suddenly it becomes a grey area? So senseless killing is immoral, but killing with cause is sometimes not immoral? I have no idea who Sam Harris is and also didn't google it when I googled morality before going on this endless tangent ^^' But what I am getting at is that morality seems to be grounded in whatever is the accepted baseline of Quality of Life at that time. I wouldn't call someone desperately stealing a loaf of bread to keep their family alive an immoral person - even if the action on some level can be considered immoral. But I would call a ridiculously wealthy person using their money to buy up housing to make more money immoral - or at least the action of constricting and depriving others of 'primary goods' (water, food, housing etc) is immoral in my eyes. Which is why for example, in my opinion, privatising healthcare and deregulating housing markets to an extreme is problematic. In the same vain, I would call restricting people's access to the internet immoral nowadays (although it might be a blessing in disguise lol) - since I consider it a primary good. People thousands of years ago could care less about copper cables in the ocean, but they probably cared about their basic needs the same as we do nowadays. --- Last thing I want to mention is that I like the idea of people being allowed to shine to their brightness and nothing should diminish that in them. If you put a decently bright light in a room full of windows on a very sunny day - it might seem like that light is useless or is underperforming. But if you put that light in your darker basement it is suddenly performing pretty well. This is mostly about most people being capable of flourishing as long as they are put in the right place. But also touches on how you work with others. In a project setting for example two people might work together and you could say the moral thing would be for both to put in the same amount of effort. This is however not always the case and also hard to gauge. You might feel your colleague is underperforming, but they might just not be as good as you at the tasks - so even though they put in the same effort - they do not shine as bright as you might. You might feel your colleague is doing fine, but they might not be putting in the same effort - since they had a death in the family or other personal matters. Now they DO shine as bright as you do, but they put in less effort. Usually people will be angry when they feel like their projectmate is not performing as well as them, even though I personally feel like the effort is what one should be angry at. If anything, you should be angry at the system (or your manager haha) that you have to work with someone who can't perform as well. It's still 'unfair' if you have to do more work (even when it takes you comparatively less effort?), but life is kinda unfair now is it not ^^' What I wanted to say with this is that people are not immoral for not being able to perform as well as others in the same spot - given that they put in the same amount of effort. I think about this alot because of my recent ADHD diagnosis revealing to me how goddamn hard I've had to work to get the same results when compared to my direct peers. It feels very very unfair - but that doesnt make others immoral or evil! I guess we could ride that slope and then think that if you can shine very brightly, but choose not to, that that would be immortal - since it could be considered 'unfair' towards those who can't - but that kinda destroys free-will :)) In my eyes it is not immoral to basically be lazy if you can get away with it (it doesnt affect others negatively) - but it is immoral to put people in a position where they can't perform - if that makes any sense. Best example I have is the practice in japan or korea idk for sure, where they don't want to fire the person - but instead they just give them 0 tasks and make them sit in a room or at a desk for 8 hours a day doing nothing - waiting for them to break. The other way around is giving people 4 hours to complete a task that takes them 8 hours to complete. The whole 'work 60 hours, but get paid for 40' type of sphere. Hmm.. Maybe we should stick with easier/smaller questions haha - I just spend 40 minutes typing this out and now i'm too tired to re-read it so... :) Thanks for sharing your question - i'll try to introduce more brevity into future ramblings - but I can't promise that TLDR: Can morality be objectively grounded? I think probably in some sense connecting it to our 'mission' as a human/species. In the end we just want to stay alive (and by extension procreate) in a way that isn't 100% misery and suffering.

@@riquizcasts wow!!!! You are so thoughtful and competent. I agree morality must depend on the circumstances. People can’t be held responsible if they didn’t know they were doing something wrong in any case. I also agree that life is almost always good except the times it isn’t. We put animals down when we can’t save them to ease their suffering. Humans can vouch for themselves as well so that complicated it as you must take their wishes into account on whether their life is worth living. Is it always? I I think it depends. I still think that if we plot moral progress on a graph you will see us approaching something that is morality fully realized. We get more moral with more knowledge. That is why I think the future will inevitably be better for all. Even though right now it’s only better for some. Maybe most I haven’t researched it. You raise an interesting point. I am convinced well-being is the ultimate goal over survival and also that morality is only to do with the effect we have on others. So anything you do to yourself that doesn’t affect others is amoral, not immoral or moral. But what about things you do yourself to at effect others? Like not trying your best? Is a rich person that hoarded their money and doesn’t help people immoral? Most people would say yes. Kant and myself would agree. Which leads to a crazy world if taken to its conclusion. Perhaps a better one but very different. Of course this is all with an understanding that we have an ability to do otherwise for most people to think anything is moral or not. It since I don’t believe that’s possible we can only base morality on its consequences and intent. Not on whether we could have done otherwise. This is what led me to realize divine judgment itself is immoral. I can relate to your ADHD journey very well. I thought I was just a failure all my life because I couldn’t achieve what others could. I just didn’t have the energy, concentration or motivation and was depressed all the time. Everything felt immensely difficult. But just last year I was diagnosed with Bipolar disorder that I had since high school and never knew. Just like with you it highlights that really everyone is doing their best. We don’t choose our circumstances. We don’t choose our moods. We don’t choose our beliefs. At least not in the way people usually think. No one has to feel like a failure. Like you said, we all shine bright given the right chance to. Thank you for your efforts, you seem like such a valuable entity for us. I got my heaviest questions out already so don’t worry about having to do this extensive a dialogue again I think lol.

@@machineelf9459 You flatter me ;) You raise an interesting point by introducing the concept of 'amoral', which I didn't really address or consider in my writing. The idea of plotting our moral progress on a graph is also very interesting. More knowledge is almost a curse in a sense, since it becomes harder to be 'fully morally alligned'; people only have limited bandwith after all. As long as we use the knowledge to create more morally sound systems I think life for everyone should improve as a result. An example would be inheritence tax I suppose, or just taxes and subsidies in general. Ideally they encourage the (moral) behavior we (as a society) want to see. Your point on end-of-life resonates with me deeply. I've done some design work in the geriatric space and it just isn't about saving or prolonging life anymore at some point. Quality over quantity - same as with our pets - seems to be more accepted as a moral course of action, although some religions are strictly against things such as euthenasia. I'm sorry to hear this diagnosis came so late and for the suffering you experienced because of it. Hopefully you are in a place that enables you to shine bright (queue shine bright like a diamond song lyrics). Thank you for the food for thought (more like a buffet) and ofc for watching my silly videogame commentaries :)

Nicely spotted & thanks for sharing! That is both sick and hella annoying haha

Thanks for the feedback (and watching ofcourse)! I'll do some tweaking ^^

Very much my pleasure, thank you for watching! Not a very comprehensive take, but some shower thoughts! I feel like most people, in the end, are largely beholden to their circumstances (and experiences). Within this frame of existence that I'd call their life, they can make a number of limited 'free-will' based decisions that are still constrained by their frame. Both in the sense that a person, in my experience, can only make a hand full of fully informed (100% brain engaged, no autopilot) decisions each day. And in the sense that not every decision ends up mattering to their experience of the world - depending on the granularity of your view ofcourse. In the end your circumstances largely dictate the decisions you get to make and what impact they have on your life, your perceived life and your perceived self. So I guess I base the level of 'free-ness' of will on how many decisions one can make that actually noticeably change the course of the giant oil tanker of a life you are on. Bonus ramble: (This in itself might be shortsighted and a lot of 'free-ness' might be gained by correctly identifying your own sphere of influence and adjusting your expectations to match that sphere very closely + focussing your decisions on widening that sphere comfortably and responsibly?) idk i'm trained to be an industrial design engineer by day, gamer by afternoon and evening and night - not much of a philosopher ^^'

​@@riquizcasts thank you for your insights!

@@yawn43 Any time :)

@@riquizcasts you answered! Thank you! No no your answer was fine, very thorough. It’s a debate I’m very fascinated with and I figured your take would be interesting. I like the idea that we are more free the more we learn to make fully conscious decisions.

soO-lar ? I'll try to pronounce it more 'correctly' in the next video that features Solar (sōlər)! When I hear google pronounce it, mine is indeed a bit long on the OOO and even the AA ^^' Thank you for taking the time to voice this annoyance - I got a good laugh out of hearing myself mispronounce it haha

@@riquizcasts You're awesome! Keep doing what you are doing! As an American, I love the accent!

Haha DSCL 2019 is a few years ago now but thanks 😁 One of my amateur highlights for sure!

@@machineelf9459 Thank you for sharing! It's nice when the perceived void of the internet talks back sometimes haha But if they use different matter to reconstruct 'me' - am I not just a very perfect copy that then becomes its own entity the moment it resumes living? I guess we always stop and start being ourselves in every moment that passes by...

@ for sure. Keep it up! You are already good at casting, just need to stay consistently uploading while making slight changes to see what hits the algorithm. So who we are is an ongoing process of change, so if that process (our consciousness) is not interrupted during the process you are still you even if every part of you is replaced. There is a famous philosophical problem about this where if you replace a ship pierce by peace over years until none of it is the same is it still the same ship. It’s a cool one to think about

@@machineelf9459 Yeah the ship of theseus! But in our version the original parts and the replacement parts are never in the same room together ^^'

Alright alright alright, glad my casting might be closer to your preferences!

@@riquizcasts Hope you'll be getting some more subs, GL

@@hellevorst Thank you for the encouragement! - I'll try to make sure I'm good enough to deserve those subs when they come.

Haha yes they do! I checked it after the game and felt really silly for not remembering 😅

I think the biggest impact will be felt in the early game. Proxy hatches are slightly stronger (especially ones with low queen counts and 30 dmg spines! ) and your first hatch is also harder to block (mostly by protoss) because it is down a bit earlier. This all just starts the zerg snowball very slightly earlier - creep spreading a bit earlier for a wall and drones being able to mine slightly earlier at the new base. I think every zerg will still go to their 6 to 8 queen counts - which means it costs them 150-200 more minerals (minus 100 minerals from your first 4 bases). We might even see some experimenting with delaying queens in some spots - which would be cool honestly! When you would build 1 queen per base - you actually win out in my opinion, because you get to save 25 minerals and pay it later - meaning you can build a drone 25 minerals earlier until you have to make the queen (71 seconds hatchery build time). So I think that even in that scenario you win a little tiny bit of efficiency over the 300 hatch and 150 queen. Probably only counts for ZvZ but still notable. In the end both changes (queen & hatch) seem to kinda balance out and instead we get buffs on spores, spines and broods xD Thanks for sharing your opinion!

@@riquizcasts the early game tempo boost will be interesting, especially for more greedy builds that rush the third Hatch. It'll be interesting to see if that outweighs the loss in overall minerals that'll kick in somewhere around the 4(?) minute mark. It might, but I'm skeptical since I almost always build at least twice as many Queens as Hatcheries in games. (Often way more from having to rebuild ones that die.) But tempo is huge, and the Spine Crawler buff will push that even more. That buff may be enough to let you survive games you wouldn't have otherwise due to skimping on early Queens. My normal build makes three Queens before the third Hatch, which means I'd be down 50 minerals on the timing, but if I can now delay the third Queen, I'll instead be up 100. It'll definitely be interesting to see how things play out. Honestly, with my level of execution the difference probably won't matter at all >.<

@@zz1000zz Haha doesn't matter much with my level of execution neither I bet :)) I would like to highlight the fact that minerals are often not the only bottleneck, but larvae as well when building drones. This means zergs probably can't use those extra 25 minerals that often on their droning :( (?) Personally I would also not like to delay the 3rd queen - seems very difficult. You sacrifice defensive potential in the queen itself and energy for creep and injects. Any extra slow lings we have to make instantly negates any upside of skipping the queen as well, since those minerals/larvae should be drones ^^' So early it seems impossible to pass on the 0 larvae defensive unit (queen). The first 2 queens often do 1x inject and 1x tumor (with fast 3rd macro ofc), but we probably won't be skipping neither of those either because otherwise we float the minerals anyways... I'd be surprised if zergs really change up their openers at all. My tendency is to just do the same thing we've been doing but feel more punished when losing a queen or drones (ESPECIALLY early on). Maybe if we get a map where walling in with buildings+queen or certain spine positions are super strong?(maybe the zerg cabal will make the spines get a range buff :) ) Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, very fun to discuss and learning the flaws in my own assumptions!

Nice dodging 😉

Thank you for the comment and the encouragement :)

Thanks for watching!!

Thank you for commenting and I'm glad you enjoyed the cast!

o7

Plenty of Terran-y goodness coming up!

Glad you enjoyed the cast! If you wanted to see more Pheonix Colossus or pheonix openers: ShoWTimE vs HeRoMaRinE - g1 and one other ShoWTimE vs GuMiho - Ghost River game Small spoilers: vs. heromarine he use a stargate opener at least twice and uses the pheonix openers differently. He does not blindly go for pheonix colossus every game - making it impossible for gabe to hardcounter it. (watch the first game, you will be impressed) vs. gumiho he uses it once and gets far behind because of a buildorder loss, which is still pretty informative to see what you need to look out for when playing the style/opener.

@@riquizcasts thanks!

Never too late to slowly get into sc2 ;)

Thanks for watching! I personally feel like Celestials are leaning a lot (and rightfully so; it is strong) on the 'Sovereigns Watch' ability to defend, which scales horribly into the later stages of the game - together with their AoE dmg units demanding a lot of finesse. Haven't really encountered Celestial games that go very late in a balanced manner ^^'