|
After the latest Goody win vs Ret 2-0 at the homestory cup I yet again I see people spamming the live report thread with how bad he is, and how his strategies are lame. Even pro players like morrow post how terrible he is. I don't get it. I just don't get it why people hate on goody's? Why do they think he is terrible?
People KNOW his style, the KNOW what to expect, and yet Goody beats them with it. I don't see how does that make Goody terrible? His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, otherwise he wouldn't be beating good players on regular basis. The funny thing is how his opponents who are "so much better" keep losing to him and to that same style he always uses yet people call Goody bad.
That doesn't make any damn sense. I think people are just mad that their favorite players lose to such unorthodox tactics.
 
|
Goody will be the best foreigner if he ever takes the time to really work on his mechanics. People hate on him as they are just jealous of his intelligence and game sense, and although they mass games and have great mechanics they will never have the understanding that he does
|
The key to beating Goody is a strong mental game. Only a few years back, the same happened in the German/foreign Broodwar scene. People who could go toe to toe with the semi- and b-house-pros on iccup (although mostly losing :D) simply lost to 80 apm Goody. But once they managed to beat him once in a BO3, they beat him everytime after. Saw it happening with Pidgin, Gan and kAra during our time in mTw. You can see the same happening in SC2, those who have strong mental game crush him.
Edit: Also, Goody was almost unbeatable at LANs. True story.
|
On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics,
That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart.
Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff.
|
On January 07 2012 06:25 scarper65 wrote:
Goody will be the best foreigner if he ever takes the time to really work on his mechanics. People hate on him as they are just jealous of his intelligence and game sense, and although they mass games and have great mechanics they will never have the understanding that he does
I am getting a bit frusterated hearing everyone say X would be best player if only Y. Goody is ranked 66th in the ELO, hasn't won any major tournaments outside of the Zotac cups which are usually only 8 players, and recently lost to MaNa, HasuObs, and Kas. So no he's not even close to being the best foreigner. When he starts taking down players like Nestea, or MC, then maybe he can challenge Naniwa or HuK for that title.
I could say anyone would be a better player if they "only worked on their mechanics". Yes, if someone worked on their mechanics they would be a better player. If they had perfect mechanics they could be the best player. But just saying that doesn't mean a damn thing.
|
On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:
That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart.
Don't know if I agree with this. A strategy game by definition requires intelligence to overcome mechanics. With your statement, an AI opponent will beat a human opponent every time.
Decision making is more important in mechanics, and should be able to overcome mechanics some of the time.
|
On January 07 2012 06:36 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:25 scarper65 wrote:
Goody will be the best foreigner if he ever takes the time to really work on his mechanics. People hate on him as they are just jealous of his intelligence and game sense, and although they mass games and have great mechanics they will never have the understanding that he does I am getting a bit frusterated hearing everyone say X would be best player if only Y. Goody is ranked 66th in the ELO, hasn't won any major tournaments outside of the Zotac cups which are usually only 8 players, and recently lost to MaNa, HasuObs, and Kas. So no he's not even close to being the best foreigner. When he starts taking down players like Nestea, or MC, then maybe he can challenge Naniwa or HuK for that title. I could say anyone would be a better player if they "only worked on their mechanics". Yes, if someone worked on their mechanics they would be a better player. If they had perfect mechanics they could be the best player. But just saying that doesn't mean a damn thing.
fun fact: goody did beat nestea in TSL
|
On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart. Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff.
That's extremely well phrased, Talin. Expresses my feelings exactly.
Also, I still don't buy people's reasoning for calling players "bad" or "worse than the one they won against". The only purely objective benchmark of who is a better player is decided by the result of the match. Other factors are merely subjective ("he's not playing safe", "he can only do this all-in style", "he's not a well-rounded player", "his mechanics are bad"). Winning is what determines who's skilled at this game. If getting supply-blocked constantly and missrallying units doesn't influence the result of the game enough, than those things can't be considered pivotal in measuring one's skill. That not how it should be - and that's where I agree with Talin - but that's what it is.
|
On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart. Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff.
what are you talking about? "standards exist, more skilled players playing standard win against unorthodox stuff"
|
I think Goody has ok mechanics. He is not at the level of top foreigners, nor would most consider him among the top foreigners. but I would still consider his mechnics good, just a little worse than others.
He is a really smart player. He knows what to do and when. His mind and knowledge of the game ends up winning him most games.
On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart. Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff.
I think you are wrong here. unorthodox stuff is how the game changes, how new builds are made, new timings found, and makes the game more exiciting.
Mechanical ability should be important, but having the knowledge of the game and also having the ability to make a player lose his cool is how rts' should be played.
If every TvZ was mech, same build, same timings, same everything. And at the end all players did was a-move. It would suck as a game and as I esport.
|
It blows me away that Goody is a competitive player based on one thing. He often times has at least 1500 total resources queued at any given point. And other competitive players just don't even get close to that. Seeing 3 tanks and a thor queued at 4 factories when he's at 140 food makes my head explode.
|
On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart. Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff.
Talin maybe you should play something like this instead?
On January 07 2012 06:48 TBone- wrote:
It blows me away that Goody is a competitive player based on one thing. He often times has at least 1500 total resources queued at any given point. And other competitive players just don't even get close to that. Seeing 3 tanks and a thor queued at 4 factories when he's at 140 food makes my head explode.
That's pretty bad, relatively, but consider that it's a tradeoff in terms of apm and multitask. Perhaps he makes up for it with constant attention to the most important thing going on in the game, losing some percentage on macro but recouping it on engagements and positioning, which are the strong points for mech yes?
The reason why players that are "better" than him lose is because they don't dedicate their practice to that style. They can't fight goody at face value, and that screws with their game. They'd probably do much better if it was a ladder match against a smurf name (not psyching themselves out).
|
lol at the people in this topic who think that the smarter player shouldn't win just because he plays slower.
|
On January 07 2012 06:40 Junichi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:36 TheToast wrote:On January 07 2012 06:25 scarper65 wrote:
Goody will be the best foreigner if he ever takes the time to really work on his mechanics. People hate on him as they are just jealous of his intelligence and game sense, and although they mass games and have great mechanics they will never have the understanding that he does I am getting a bit frusterated hearing everyone say X would be best player if only Y. Goody is ranked 66th in the ELO, hasn't won any major tournaments outside of the Zotac cups which are usually only 8 players, and recently lost to MaNa, HasuObs, and Kas. So no he's not even close to being the best foreigner. When he starts taking down players like Nestea, or MC, then maybe he can challenge Naniwa or HuK for that title. I could say anyone would be a better player if they "only worked on their mechanics". Yes, if someone worked on their mechanics they would be a better player. If they had perfect mechanics they could be the best player. But just saying that doesn't mean a damn thing. fun fact: goody did beat nestea in TSL
You are correct, he did beat him in the TSL 3. But then Goody also finished like 15th overall, so I'm not sure this really hurts my point. He is a very good player, but it's a really big stretch to say he's clost to being the best foriegner.
-edit: clarity
|
Goody is a ridiculously good player, but he's slow and he's terrible against protoss. Saying he's bad is like saying an elephant is bad because it is so heavy it cannot run. Goody has gaping faults that obviously hold him back a great deal, but those only highlight just how awe-inspiring his other skills need to be to be where he is.
|
On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart. Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff.
It's a STRATEGY game. There's nothing wrong with being able to have some success with good strategies and average mechanics. And let's be realistic, it's not like he's not beating top pros like Mvp, DRG, or Leenok.
If it's true that some 'pros' like Morrow are talking trash after losing to him... well that just says alot about their own skill level doesn't it?
|
GoOdy is unique, popular and wins games. Thats a rare combination in SC2.
|
I think goody is awesome player I don't know why you h8 on him ? Yes his mechanics are bad and i think thats why people h8 him becuase he does his thing everytime people know what is coming he is playing bad (mechanic wise) and still wins. I'm pretty sure people who h8 on him now know that if he starts to get serious with his mechanics they have 0 chance vs him. Goody has good decision making, he has smart tactics and he can play long games so you guys h8 on him becuase he has a flaw ? LOL
|
I wonder why some people worry about Goody, its seems like Goody dont gives a S. about it, so you also shouldn't.
|
i think u all mad cause goody kick ass with 80apm
|
On January 07 2012 08:13 Severus_ wrote:
I think goody is awesome player I don't know why you h8 on him ? Yes his mechanics are bad and i think thats why people h8 him becuase he does his thing everytime people know what is coming he is playing bad (mechanic wise) and still wins. I'm pretty sure people who h8 on him now know that if he starts to get serious with his mechanics they have 0 chance vs him. Goody has good decision making, he has smart tactics and he can play long games so you guys h8 on him becuase he has a flaw ? LOL
Hmm. I find your point less convincing given the quantity of numbers where letters should be.
|
Maybe people give foreign pros too much credit for their practice and study of opponents before tournaments. Goody has alot of tournament success even when pros know hes coming.
|
On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart. Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff.
This man speaks the truth. That Goody still wins games at all is ridiculous.
|
People hate on Goody because he's the only pro who is able to be successful with really bad macro.
Most pros try to win by proving they are the better player with macro, micro, and strong standard play. But not Goody. Instead he wins by forcing his opponents to play very awkward non-standard games. Goody has an inherent advantage in those games because he practices them all of the time, but his opponents don't, so he can nab some very surprising victories.
I think game 2 of Goody vs Ret in HS4 was a great example of this. It doesn't matter that your macro and mechanics are awful if you can so thoroughly outsmart your opponent. If Ret had just a little bit more experience against Goody's build, then he could've easily crushed it and taken a ridiculously easy win. But Ret was flustered and failed to respond properly, resulting in a very bizzare (but convincing) win for Goody.
I think pros are especially bothered by Goody because they like to think the better player wins games. But when you're regularly beaten by someone who has such obvious macro and mechanical flaws as Goody, it makes you feel really bad about your own play.
|
On January 07 2012 09:53 RoboBob wrote:
People hate on Goody because he's the only pro who is able to be successful with really bad macro.
Most pros try to win by proving they are the better player with macro, micro, and strong standard play. But not Goody. Instead he wins by forcing his opponents to play very awkward non-standard games. Goody has an inherent advantage in those games because he practices them all of the time, but his opponents don't, so he can nab some very surprising victories.
I think game 2 of Goody vs Ret in HS4 was a great example of this. It doesn't matter that your macro and mechanics are awful if you can so thoroughly outsmart your opponent. If Ret had just a little bit more experience against Goody's build, then he could've easily crushed it and taken a ridiculously easy win. But Ret was flustered and failed to respond properly, resulting in a very bizzare (but convincing) win for Goody.
I think pros are especially bothered by Goody because they like to think the better player wins games. But when you're regularly beaten by someone who has such obvious macro and mechanical flaws as Goody, it makes you feel really bad about your own play.
yay someone who thinks instead of raging
i salute you
|
On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart. Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff.
I thoroughly disagree with this statement. If you want to watch an RTS where mechanics are everything, then you've already got BW. Its much better designed for that than SC2.
I like the fact that SC2 provides a more "strategical" viewing RTS viewing alternative. I don't want SC2 to be BW with prettier graphics. I watch BW when I want to admire mechanics, I watch SC2 when I want to admire strategy+graphics.
|
honestly goody is an inspiration to me. He's not the fastest player and he has pretty bad macro for his level, but it's amazing to see how he can win through pure strategy. Almost every terran player aspires to be MVP or MMA, so they copy the same builds and practice their mechanics. But not goody. He just does his own thing and he owns with it. it is a joy to watch him play.
|
His macro play isnt that bad. If he would be so bad at macro he wouldnt be known for his long games. However, terran has now nearly no chance to win a late game anymore. So Sadly we dont see any 2h games from goody in the near future.
|
On January 07 2012 10:18 Atrimex wrote:
His macro play isnt that bad. If he would be so bad at macro he wouldnt be known for his long games. However, terran has now nearly no chance to win a late game anymore. So Sadly we dont see any 2h games from goody in the near future.
His macro is horrible. He's at least supply block 3times per game, has 1k in queue most of the time. But his decisions making skills are outstanding and he's a chill guy. Btw he makes mech looks OP in TvZ.
On January 07 2012 10:04 IMoperator wrote:
honestly goody is an inspiration to me. He's not the fastest player and he has pretty bad macro for his level, but it's amazing to see how he can win through pure strategy. Almost every terran player aspires to be MVP or MMA, so they copy the same builds and practice their mechanics. But not goody. He just does his own thing and he owns with it. it is a joy to watch him play.
Almost each top player has his unique style. Only a few (Major?) try to copy Mvp/MMA
|
how can doing the same strat at low low low low low apm and winning not be construed as him being bad and the build being good?
if you KNOW what is coming and STILL cant win only 2 viable reasons come to mind
1- goody is so fast and so godamn good that it DOESNT MATTER he wins anyway (unlikely at 60apm)
2- the strat is a joke and easy and not only is it easy but it WINS ANYWAY (more likely)
sorry but goody is a bad player who is doing well since sc2 is so easy. there is a reason the good pros complain a lot and its because sc2 is EASY compared to BW. this is a FACT since they are the same game except in sc2 you can have less apm and macro and micro JUST the same
there is not a single pro who does the same build every game vs every player. goody does. players have styles but NEVER is it the same stuff
goody is why sc2 is so easy and he is also why someone who is better then you doesnt win most of the time. THE BETTER PLAYER SHOULD WIN MOST OF THE TIME but not in sc2
|
I could watch Goody vs Nestea in TSL a 100 times and never understand how he won those games. This is not a knock against him, if anything it makes me more his fan. I have no idea how he keeps winning, but it is fun to watch him win.
The casting of Goody vs Nightend was hilarious tonight, highlighting his queued units, 6 supply depots at a time with monster blocks. But somehow he win.
It is silly to say that his macro being bad makes him bad, the same way it is silly to say that his micro being bad is what makes him bad. He wins, therefore he is good, that's all there is to it. Think about how many players and people underperform their potential. Goody overperforms on a consistent basis, how can you hate him for that?
|
On January 07 2012 10:21 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 10:18 Atrimex wrote:
His macro play isnt that bad. If he would be so bad at macro he wouldnt be known for his long games. However, terran has now nearly no chance to win a late game anymore. So Sadly we dont see any 2h games from goody in the near future. His macro is horrible. He's at least supply block 3times per game, has 1k in queue most of the time. But his decisions making skills are outstanding and he's a chill guy. Btw he makes mech looks OP in TvZ. Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 10:04 IMoperator wrote:
honestly goody is an inspiration to me. He's not the fastest player and he has pretty bad macro for his level, but it's amazing to see how he can win through pure strategy. Almost every terran player aspires to be MVP or MMA, so they copy the same builds and practice their mechanics. But not goody. He just does his own thing and he owns with it. it is a joy to watch him play. Almost each top player has his unique style. Only a few (Major?) try to copy Mvp/MMA
No, most terrans don't have their own style. They all follow the same trends. Reactor hellion into 3 tank push, gasless 1 rax FE into 3 rax, marauder hellion pushes etc.
|
On January 07 2012 10:33 ohokurwrong wrote:
how can doing the same strat at low low low low low apm and winning not be construed as him being bad and the build being good?
if you KNOW what is coming and STILL cant win only 2 viable reasons come to mind
1- goody is so fast and so godamn good that it DOESNT MATTER he wins anyway (unlikely at 60apm)
2- the strat is a joke and easy and not only is it easy but it WINS ANYWAY (more likely)
sorry but goody is a bad player who is doing well since sc2 is so easy. there is a reason the good pros complain a lot and its because sc2 is EASY compared to BW. this is a FACT since they are the same game except in sc2 you can have less apm and macro and micro JUST the same
there is not a single pro who does the same build every game vs every player. goody does. players have styles but NEVER is it the same stuff
goody is why sc2 is so easy and he is also why someone who is better then you doesnt win most of the time. THE BETTER PLAYER SHOULD WIN MOST OF THE TIME but not in sc2
Define "better player".
If you define better as related to winning games, then you're wrong (by definition).
If you define better as unrelated to winning games, then you're trying to tell me that something unrelated to winning should affect winning. What??
|
On January 07 2012 10:51 Hypertension wrote:
I could watch Goody vs Nestea in TSL a 100 times and never understand how he won those games. This is not a knock against him, if anything it makes me more his fan. I have no idea how he keeps winning, but it is fun to watch him win.
The casting of Goody vs Nightend was hilarious tonight, highlighting his queued units, 6 supply depots at a time with monster blocks. But somehow he win.
It is silly to say that his macro being bad makes him bad, the same way it is silly to say that his micro being bad is what makes him bad. He wins, therefore he is good, that's all there is to it. Think about how many players and people underperform their potential. Goody overperforms on a consistent basis, how can you hate him for that?
To be fair, NesTea had the third game sewn up before he went crazy and started making horrible decisions. Shades of Huk vs. NesTea in the GSL...
|
GoOdy is so succsessful because most players arent god enough to overcome his strategic abilities. A player with GoOdys knowledge and game sense and high apm would be gamebreaking.
Btw its kind of sad that ppl complain about GoOdys build which must be overpowered as hell while very good players dont even give him a chance. Sure he recently won against a lot of koreans and a lot of top foreigners but when he meets top level koreans he doesnt stand a chance.
|
On January 07 2012 11:48 IMoperator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 10:21 sAsImre wrote:On January 07 2012 10:18 Atrimex wrote:
His macro play isnt that bad. If he would be so bad at macro he wouldnt be known for his long games. However, terran has now nearly no chance to win a late game anymore. So Sadly we dont see any 2h games from goody in the near future. His macro is horrible. He's at least supply block 3times per game, has 1k in queue most of the time. But his decisions making skills are outstanding and he's a chill guy. Btw he makes mech looks OP in TvZ. On January 07 2012 10:04 IMoperator wrote:
honestly goody is an inspiration to me. He's not the fastest player and he has pretty bad macro for his level, but it's amazing to see how he can win through pure strategy. Almost every terran player aspires to be MVP or MMA, so they copy the same builds and practice their mechanics. But not goody. He just does his own thing and he owns with it. it is a joy to watch him play. Almost each top player has his unique style. Only a few (Major?) try to copy Mvp/MMA No, most terrans don't have their own style. They all follow the same trends. Reactor hellion into 3 tank push, gasless 1 rax FE into 3 rax, marauder hellion pushes etc.
An opening isn't a style, gasless 1rax FE into 3raxes has been used at the highest level by only a few terran.. let me explain you with a few exemples in TvZ because you took these openings:
ThorZaIN does some micro intensive openings or greedy openings, as most terrans do, however there is only one spoon terran.
Kas will just do a powering build (get a lot of infrastructure early on) in 90% of his game
Bomber is an aggressive player, and he'll do a lot of straght up pushes.
Sc is the only terran who just attack and rally everything toward the zerg base in the mid game.
Mvp does greedy builds and his really cost-efficient (Mvp trade mark in every match-up)
MMA is MMA, he's going to harass with drops.
GoOdy mechs. Everygame. But his openings are known: some kind of reaper into: bfh, 2 ports banshee, straight up macro if gets and early lead with his reaper. Or he does his hellion/marine/medivac push like in the game 3 against Nestea @TSL.
He follows his own early game plan, but even standard play has so much subtle variations that there isn't a way to play. If y ou talk about a reactor hellion FE you can do: 1rax bunker rush, 4 or 6 hellions, more hellions, a fast 3rd, an elevator play, a banshee follow up, a 2 tank push, a 3 tank push, those two with two or three raxes, you can go 3 factory and mech... It's so wide open (and imo partly explain why hellions are a standard atm) that you can't say everybody does the same thing because nobody does everything and people always prefer some kind of opneing leading to their confort zone.
On January 07 2012 11:59 Tppz! wrote:
GoOdy is so succsessful because most players arent god enough to overcome his strategic abilities. A player with GoOdys knowledge and game sense and high apm would be gamebreaking.
Btw its kind of sad that ppl complain about GoOdys build which must be overpowered as hell while very good players dont even give him a chance. Sure he recently won against a lot of koreans and a lot of top foreigners but when he meets top level koreans he doesnt stand a chance.
GoOdy's TvZ builds are extremely abusives (which is a good thing) so it's really hard for the zerg to be prepared for everything (game 2 against ret show this) because he exploits zergs weaknesses really well and you can't be prepared for everything without having 0 chance in a macro game. Then the fact that he pushes always at the good timing in TvZ is mind blowing.
|
On January 07 2012 08:02 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:29 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 06:22 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
His mechanics may not be good but they are obviously compensated by his decision making/game sense and tactics, That should not happen. Such a huge gap in mechanical ability shouldn't be possible to overcome just by being smart. Then again, that's the game's problem, not Goody's. Which is why I don't hate Goody at all, but I am slowly growing tired of SC2's continuous inability to transition into an RTS where standards exist and more skilled players playing the standard game win most of the time against "unorthodox" stuff. It's a STRATEGY game. There's nothing wrong with being able to have some success with good strategies and average mechanics. And let's be realistic, it's not like he's not beating top pros like Mvp, DRG, or Leenok. If it's true that some 'pros' like Morrow are talking trash after losing to him... well that just says alot about their own skill level doesn't it?
Agreed. Why shouldn't good strategy be rewarded in a STRATEGY game? Also I meant that I saw Morrow posting about goody in the live report thread about homestory cup not that he is trash talking after losing him.
|
Goody is very good strategically at a strategy game.
However, his ability to perform repetitive menial tasks is poor, people hate on him because of this.
|
the people arguing that sc2 is what makes goody good are retarded, he was successful in broodwar with terran/protoss with the same mechanics he has now.
|
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making?
|
On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making?
Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly.
In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players.
If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game.
If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
|
As somebody already pointed out, Goody has already been successful in BW, so you cant blame SC2 for his success.
Goody invests the same amount of time like most of the pros in training, but in his training, playing Games to improve his mechanics is only a very small part. He invests more time in analyzing the current state of the game, and developing the most abusive tactics he can think of. Im not saying that negatively, I highly respect him, for developing this strats. Because of his abusive tactics, people always thought, that Goody would just disappear, whenever a new Patch was released, but its exactly the opposite. Goody is one of the most consistent players, because he has an incredible sense of the game, and therefore can change his tactics aproppriatly very very fast. I just love Goody for being unique, and in my opinion he deserves everything he achieved.
|
On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
If you are searching for something with one build order and always the same timings and thats supports your finger acrobatic affinity you may try cup stacking?
|
just wanted to show some love for goody. gogo.
|
On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:
If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
It is when he can do it consistently even though people downplay the strategy game as simplistic, because all he does is show how much there is left to learn and practice in the game.
|
Goody plays his openings out in a, not-so-standard way against players. While alot of players will go straight for an expo, he'll invest into units and see if he can punish a player by surprise. This play style is actually very reminiscent of a player we all love, SlayerSBoxeR.
If you compare both players, you can see that they lack in certain part of their game. But they end up winning by outsmarting their opponent in most cases. SlayerSBoxer has better mechanics than Goody, but compared to other Koreans he lacks in that department. Goody is the same way, he lacks mechanically against other Europeans, but he manages to outsmart his opponents in the end.
I feel both players could improve their play mechanically. But both of those players are strong in their area of expertise, and I don't think you can fault their wins because their opponent "made more units".
|
On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
(my bold) I thought winning was valued highest?
|
On January 08 2012 07:55 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about. (my bold) I thought winning was valued highest?
whining is the highest valuer for fans.
|
I'm shocked that Goody took 2 games off pro Korean Protosses after playing bio for only a few weeks. If he used a different build in game 3 then he might've taken out JYP. Even MKP was confused by Goody's play, but you can't argue with the results.
|
On January 08 2012 08:20 RoboBob wrote:
I'm shocked that Goody took 2 games off pro Korean Protosses after playing bio for only a few weeks. If he used a different build in game 3 then he might've taken out JYP. Even MKP was confused by Goody's play, but you can't argue with the results.
The results were getting pounded by ReaL, taking a game after a failed dtrush (and even then, it could have gone either way).
Goody has shown some pretty superb play in HSC but that series that confused the korean casters was not it.
|
On January 08 2012 08:03 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 07:55 EatThePath wrote:On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about. (my bold) I thought winning was valued highest? whining is the highest valuer for fans.
Actually, I've been arguing against Talin and others who hold that view for more than a year, in multiple threads, but thanks for the smarmy rebuke coupled to a snub.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm not usually petty or sarcastic but this debate is worth it to me. I'm sorry you have such a problem with goody though. If you read the thread you'll also see I never indicate I'm a goody fan. Keep hating, I guess; play to your strengths. And if I interpreted the opposite of your intended meaning from your pun, sorry, oops. 
|
On January 08 2012 08:55 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 08:03 sAsImre wrote:On January 08 2012 07:55 EatThePath wrote:On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about. (my bold) I thought winning was valued highest? whining is the highest valuer for fans. Actually, I've been arguing against Talin and others who hold that view for more than a year, in multiple threads, but thanks for the smarmy rebuke coupled to a snub. + Show Spoiler +I'm not usually petty or sarcastic but this debate is worth it to me. I'm sorry you have such a problem with goody though. If you read the thread you'll also see I never indicate I'm a goody fan. Keep hating, I guess; play to your strengths. And if I interpreted the opposite of your intended meaning from your pun, sorry, oops.
Exactly the opposite :D What GoOdy does is exceptionnal because his game sense isn't something you can study. If you look at his games in fpov you can see that (or I'm fucking blind) it's pure gamesense in late/mid game because he doesn't scount that much. Or he has every possible timings in his brain. Contrarty to what Talin wrote I think that what GoOdy is really worth writing about it. Because every player who tried to mech like him, even with way better mechanics failed utterly.
I remember Kas failing hardcore against Catz in his showmatch when fans asked him to play "GoOdy style" while the rest of t he series was one sided.
I should have quoted Talin directly, my point would have been clearer sorry, it's just that fans prefer to whine about something if they don't understand it, or just because it doesn't suit their taste. And it's not specific to sc2, you just have to read the LR for SKT vs KT yesterday...
|
On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about.
Would you say BeSt was thinking this while July enjoyed his OSL win?
What about Jangbi after Luxury beat him?
Idra while Nony enjoyed his 10k check?
|
On January 08 2012 07:55 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 20:40 Talin wrote:On January 07 2012 20:16 phantaxx wrote:
I've never understood why everyone thinks so much more highly of good mechanics than good strategy and thinking. Is winning because the player was producing constantly and not getting supply blocked really more impressive than a player winning because of tactics and decision making? Mechanics is much more than not getting supply blocked and producing constantly. In every (real time) competitive game, it's skill that is valued the highest. In an RTS game, mechanics and execution IS skill. It separates progamers that train 12 hours a day to be able to play at a near superhuman ability and casual ladder players. If a player can be controlling units at 3 places at the same time while not missing a beat in his macro, that is an impressive display of skill in a classic RTS game. If a player comes up with some obscure build and timings that make everyone (including his opponent) go WTF and then ends up having better units and simply winning because of that, that's not really anything to write home about. (my bold) I thought winning was valued highest?
You can win in a million different games, but only those that require high level of skill become competitive enough AND stay competitive for a long time. winning is only as meaningful as the game itself is challenging on a fundamental level. In order to be challenging, it must strain your basic physical and mental ability as much as possible. How much a win (and by extension, a game) is valued depends exclusively on how difficult that win was to attain.
Strategy is only theory, depth of strategic options doesn't really contribute to the skill cap and the difficulty. Most of the strategic thought doesn't even happen during the game itself, it's more so a part of preparation. There has to be an inherent level of difficulty to executing these strategies, with complex strategies that have a big pay-off being all the more difficult to execute.
The fact that many SC2 players can win games on a professional level without clean execution and high level control, and even win against players who are much more proficient in those categories, is not a good thing for a competitive game.
That said, I can see why people would see it as a good thing. It caters to the casual audience that makes up for majority of any fanbase, and makes casual players look better than they really are, and feel better about themselves.
On January 08 2012 09:28 Fontong wrote:
Would you say BeSt was thinking this while July enjoyed his OSL win?
What about Jangbi after Luxury beat him?
Idra while Nony enjoyed his 10k check?
What about every foreigner that was getting eaten alive by Korean amateurs, or compared to AI difficulty?
All of the people you mentioned (and all of current / recent BW progamers) ARE mechanically proficient to the point where you can't call any of them bad or average at it.
Among progamers, ALL of which play on an extremely high level and have superior fundamentals, some will be better and some will be worse, and many of them will resort to trickier strategies and metagaming in order to win, that's fine and normal. On their level it's often not the mechanics that actually decide the games. But the point is that you still have to actually reach that level of skill in order to stand any chance at all. Reaching that level is incredibly difficult and, for most people, impossible.
Someone like iloveoov can say that strategy and mind games are most important in BW, and from HIS perspective that might be the case. However, the fact is that he was still the most mechanically dominant player of his time.
|
On January 08 2012 09:31 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 09:28 Fontong wrote:
Would you say BeSt was thinking this while July enjoyed his OSL win?
What about Jangbi after Luxury beat him?
Idra while Nony enjoyed his 10k check? What about every foreigner that was getting eaten alive by Korean amateurs, or compared to AI difficulty? All of the people you mentioned (and all of current / recent BW progamers) ARE mechanically proficient to the point where you can't call any of them are bad or average. Among progamers, ALL of which play on an extremely high level and have superior fundamentals, some will be better and some will be worse, and many of them will resort to trickier strategies and metagaming in order to win, that's fine. On that level it's often not the mechanics that actually decide the games, but you still have to actually reach that level in order to stand any chance at all, and reaching that level is incredibly difficult. Someone like iloveoov can say that strategy and mind games are most important in BW, and from HIS perspective that might be the case. However, the fact is that he was the most mechanically dominant player of his time.
What about every foreigner that was getting eaten alive by Korean amateurs? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
|
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_-
|
On January 08 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_-
Well, it doesn't make much sense unfortuntely. Koreans had all the practice advantages in the world in BW and so had all the advantages in the games they played. This includes build orders and mechanics.
|
On January 08 2012 10:29 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_- Well, it doesn't make much sense unfortuntely. Koreans had all the practice advantages in the world in BW and so had all the advantages in the games they played. This includes build orders and mechanics.
How is that even relevant though?
The external factors don't really matter to this topic at all. The important thing is that when you put a player with (foreign) amateur level mechanics against a player with progamer level mechanics, the former will simply not win. More importantly, even if he somehow does snatch one win in a blue moon, he certainly won't win continuously, no matter how brilliant his builds and strategies may be.
Besides, if you don't like the comparsion to foreigners, consider Boxer and Nal_rA past their prime. They didn't fall off the top because they stopped being smart or because younger players suddenly got smarter - they fell behind because they couldn't keep up with players that were becoming too good for them.
|
On January 08 2012 10:43 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 10:29 Fontong wrote:On January 08 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_- Well, it doesn't make much sense unfortuntely. Koreans had all the practice advantages in the world in BW and so had all the advantages in the games they played. This includes build orders and mechanics. How is that even relevant though? The external factors don't really matter to this topic at all. The important thing is that when you put a player with (foreign) amateur level mechanics against a player with progamer level mechanics, the former will simply not win. More importantly, even if he somehow does snatch one win in a blue moon, he certainly won't win continuously, no matter how brilliant his builds and strategies may be. Besides, if you don't like the comparsion to foreigners, consider Boxer and Nal_rA past their prime. They didn't fall off the top because they stopped being smart or because younger players suddenly got smarter - they fell behind because they couldn't keep up with players that were becoming too good for them.
I'm still not getting your comparisons. You are comparing amateur mechanics to pro mechanics and pros at the tail end of their career to pros at their prime.
Goody is a pro playing pros and is presumably not out of his prime by any means, especially since the SC2 proscene is so new.
|
It's nice to see that mechanics aren't everything in a RTS game.
|
On January 08 2012 12:18 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 10:43 Talin wrote:On January 08 2012 10:29 Fontong wrote:On January 08 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_- Well, it doesn't make much sense unfortuntely. Koreans had all the practice advantages in the world in BW and so had all the advantages in the games they played. This includes build orders and mechanics. How is that even relevant though? The external factors don't really matter to this topic at all. The important thing is that when you put a player with (foreign) amateur level mechanics against a player with progamer level mechanics, the former will simply not win. More importantly, even if he somehow does snatch one win in a blue moon, he certainly won't win continuously, no matter how brilliant his builds and strategies may be. Besides, if you don't like the comparsion to foreigners, consider Boxer and Nal_rA past their prime. They didn't fall off the top because they stopped being smart or because younger players suddenly got smarter - they fell behind because they couldn't keep up with players that were becoming too good for them. I'm still not getting your comparisons. You are comparing amateur mechanics to pro mechanics and pros at the tail end of their career to pros at their prime. Goody is a pro playing pros and is presumably not out of his prime by any means, especially since the SC2 proscene is so new.
But that's the whole point. The comparisons you made were between players on a fairly similar (and extremely high) skill level, which is why they do not apply here.
The comparisons I'm making illustrate the kind of skill gap that CAN be overcome in SC2 by having a better strategy, fairly regularly even. Plenty of players (not just Goody) play sloppy, unrefined, can't multitask at all, and STILL have continued success, manage to beat some of the best players in the world and have a shot at winning against anyone.
They might be progamers in SC2 terms, but that doesn't mean they have progamer level mechanics. Some of them were BW players, and are now making way more mistakes than they did while they were playing BW as amateurs simply because the game doesn't allow better players to punish them hard enough for it. And we're talking about really, really basic stuff here (supply blocks, production cycles while being under no pressure at all). When it comes to things like map awareness and doing more than 1 thing at the time that isn't on a single hotkey, it's even worse.
|
On January 08 2012 18:08 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 12:18 Fontong wrote:On January 08 2012 10:43 Talin wrote:On January 08 2012 10:29 Fontong wrote:On January 08 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:
I did explain what I was trying to say in the rest of the post. -_- Well, it doesn't make much sense unfortuntely. Koreans had all the practice advantages in the world in BW and so had all the advantages in the games they played. This includes build orders and mechanics. How is that even relevant though? The external factors don't really matter to this topic at all. The important thing is that when you put a player with (foreign) amateur level mechanics against a player with progamer level mechanics, the former will simply not win. More importantly, even if he somehow does snatch one win in a blue moon, he certainly won't win continuously, no matter how brilliant his builds and strategies may be. Besides, if you don't like the comparsion to foreigners, consider Boxer and Nal_rA past their prime. They didn't fall off the top because they stopped being smart or because younger players suddenly got smarter - they fell behind because they couldn't keep up with players that were becoming too good for them. I'm still not getting your comparisons. You are comparing amateur mechanics to pro mechanics and pros at the tail end of their career to pros at their prime. Goody is a pro playing pros and is presumably not out of his prime by any means, especially since the SC2 proscene is so new. But that's the whole point. The comparisons you made were between players on a fairly similar (and extremely high) skill level, which is why they do not apply here. The comparisons I'm making illustrate the kind of skill gap that CAN be overcome in SC2 by having a better strategy, fairly regularly even. Plenty of players (not just Goody) play sloppy, unrefined, can't multitask at all, and STILL have continued success, manage to beat some of the best players in the world and have a shot at winning against anyone. They might be progamers in SC2 terms, but that doesn't mean they have progamer level mechanics. Some of them were BW players, and are now making way more mistakes than they did while they were playing BW as amateurs simply because the game doesn't allow better players to punish them hard enough for it. And we're talking about really, really basic stuff here (supply blocks, production cycles while being under no pressure at all). When it comes to things like map awareness and doing more than 1 thing at the time that isn't on a single hotkey, it's even worse.
I don't understand your point. GoOdy was good in BW and now he is good in SC2. That mechanics doesnt mean everything shows only that the game is complex and this is a good thing in my eyes. If you only try to become a computer ai by training mechanics over and over again, that would be boaring. For you skill = mechanics, if that where the case for SC2 I would immediately stop playing and watching.
|
On a side-note: Shouldn't we all be happy that someone like Goody exists? I like the fact that there's a really unique player who continuously stays in the scene.
And somehow I get the feeling that many here overlook the fact that other players don't have perfect macro either.
|
On January 09 2012 00:02 AMaidensWrath wrote:
On a side-note: Shouldn't we all be happy that someone like Goody exists? I like the fact that there's a really unique player who continuously stays in the scene.
And somehow I get the feeling that many here overlook the fact that other players don't have perfect macro either.
100% agree.
I love so much watching Goody because he's unique, his style is unique. All other players are doing the same stuff, except him.You can watch Kas or Thorzain or Happy and it's always pretty much the same stuff.
Goody is so strong because he's playing unexpected builds, and his micro is just insane : watch his stream and you'll see how he never looses a single unit !!
I think other pros are just jealous because Goody is so strong with little apm and always getting supply block 2min long each game... Also people think that Mech is easy to play, but why don't they do it ??
|
|
|
GoOdy won a map of JYP with Bio. Deal with it, GoOdy is good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
