LOLGAME

On March 12 2009 23:56 malongo wrote:
Not blog material imo, im against these "lol bm opponent" sort of blogs. At least i ask you to post the rep so people can learn something.

On March 12 2009 21:41 Day[9] wrote:
I know its bad to enjoy this sort of thing, but oh my it felt delicious

On March 13 2009 00:43 pangshai wrote:
whats also amazing is that you managed to spend 1.7K minerals on almost just lings in like 1.5 minutes. thats like just 2 production cycles.

On March 13 2009 00:07 Scooter wrote:
Replays with text is the greatest balance patch ever.

On March 13 2009 02:23 SnowFantasy wrote:
Post this in the report bm thread.

On March 13 2009 02:12 MYM.Testie wrote:
thegasface is me =[
+ Show Spoiler +

On March 13 2009 02:23 SnowFantasy wrote:
Post this in the report bm thread.

On March 13 2009 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:
lol this guy should realize that even Bisu and Jaedong can't start their accounts at A+, everyone has to go through the D ranks.

On March 12 2009 23:56 malongo wrote:
Not blog material imo, im against these "lol bm opponent" sort of blogs. At least i ask you to post the rep so people can learn something.

On March 13 2009 03:44 JWD wrote:
hahahaha yeah Day[9] what a cool guy you are, you beat a D-level opponent and then posted screenshots to show how frustrated he was

you are awesome

On March 13 2009 03:45 Frits wrote:


This is both hilarious and it inspires good manners, I don't see the problem.

On March 13 2009 03:53 cUrsOr wrote:
this happens a lot. people start losing at C and B
so they come back for some wins.

On March 13 2009 00:15 statix wrote:
you cant just take the whole map and run away with the win... not in an iccup game

On March 13 2009 03:55 LosingID8 wrote:

lol wait you think day9 loses regularly to C and B ranks?

On March 13 2009 03:35 Strayline wrote:
So as someone often on the receiving end of this particular experience I understand the urge to say fuck you at the end of some games. I don't BM (although I will admit I don't always say gg) but I've been tempted to ask "What was the point of that?" at the end of a game where I get completely outclassed and then humiliated by someone on a 0-0 account.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to off race or practice Mech vs Z or 2port or proxy gate or 4 pool or whatever (hell, even play a warm-up or brush up on a MU you seem to have lost the knack for) on a separate account I totally understand. I'm not saying you shouldn't have multiple accounts.

What I don't understand is what the appeal is to making 0-0 accounts over and over. It's really prevalent. In fact, I expect a 0-0 account to beat me. Much more so, in fact, than anyone who's account is anywhere between 1000-2000 especially if it isn't evenly divisible by 100.

If you're good, your screwing around accounts wouldn't naturally stay d and I'm highly suspicious that practicing anything vs a d is really useful to most of the people who seem to be doing it. Wouldn't a D+ player be a better test case and a C- better still? So usually I conclude that someone just wanted to play a game where they would win easily and possibly go for some humiliation as well. And thus the reaction you got. It probably wasn't the first time it had happened to him that session.

On March 13 2009 03:35 Strayline wrote:
So as someone often on the receiving end of this particular experience I understand the urge to say fuck you at the end of some games. I don't BM (although I will admit I don't always say gg) but I've been tempted to ask "What was the point of that?" at the end of a game where I get completely outclassed and then humiliated by someone on a 0-0 account.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to off race or practice Mech vs Z or 2port or proxy gate or 4 pool or whatever (hell, even play a warm-up or brush up on a MU you seem to have lost the knack for) on a separate account I totally understand. I'm not saying you shouldn't have multiple accounts.

What I don't understand is what the appeal is to making 0-0 accounts over and over. It's really prevalent. In fact, I expect a 0-0 account to beat me. Much more so, in fact, than anyone who's account is anywhere between 1000-2000 especially if it isn't evenly divisible by 100.

If you're good, your screwing around accounts wouldn't naturally stay d and I'm highly suspicious that practicing anything vs a d is really useful to most of the people who seem to be doing it. Wouldn't a D+ player be a better test case and a C- better still? So usually I conclude that someone just wanted to play a game where they would win easily and possibly go for some humiliation as well. And thus the reaction you got. It probably wasn't the first time it had happened to him that session.

On March 13 2009 03:57 LosingID8 wrote:

you couldn't be more wrong with your last two paragraphs.

day9 has been out of the bw scene for a long time, so it's not like he's familiar with all the maps. as he said in the OP, he's been playing zvp on medusa for the first time recently. try playing medusa zvp against B players in your first game ever on that map. chances are you will get killed and not really know why your build was bad on that map, etc.

basically day9 is an extremely experimental player. he doesn't follow carbon copy build orders. he practices all sorts of interesting timing windows etc starting from the bottom ranks up, so that way by the time he's facing C+ or better players he actually has a good build order etc.

On March 13 2009 03:55 LosingID8 wrote:

lol wait you think day9 loses regularly to C and B ranks?

On March 13 2009 04:43 Day[9] wrote:
though i'm going into this concept later in an audio recording, i figure i'll respond to Strayline briefly now:

Strong players naturally know how to "hide" their weak points. I remember playing a VERY strong terran player back when I was bad, and I literally could not conceive of a way to beat him. It seemed that he was completely defended at every point in the game, and that his macro/economy allowed him to have x100 more units. I tried my best in a series of 15 or so games to use every play I knew: 9pool, fast lurker, 3hatch lurker/ling, fast defilers, fast ultralisks, mass mutalisks. Nothing worked!

Weak players naturally expose their weak points. For instance, a terran player might early expand and get an academy WAY too late. As a zerg player, I'll immediately notice when I have 30 lings and he has 16 marines and no medics anywhere in sight. Consequently, such a blatant mistake sticks out in my mind and I can immediately abuse this. Other such abuses and timings are blatantly apparent when you're playing against someone who's not particularly good.

In other words, vs good players, you learn what NOT to do, vs bad players you learn what TO do. In terms of practice, its critical to alternate playing between weaker and stronger players. vs the weaker opponents, I can flesh out some timing windows and see where clear deficiencies and strengths lie in my own build. vs better opponents, I tweak my builds and knowledge to account for subtleties and precision.

I cannot tell you how much this has helped me improve over time. I mean, imagine if the MOTW is katrina: gas expansions everywhere, weird counter attack paths, little worry of early game rush etc etc. Consider if you've never played katrina. You begin playing on the map, and over the course of the week develop a comfortable playstyle that brings you all the way to B.

Now, the MOTW changes to python, a map with a totally different dynamic: wide open expansions, a very difficult to secure 3rd gas, a wide open center etc etc. Naturally, your katrina builds don't work, but trying to discover a new playstyle is extremely difficult against the B players who already know python. You'll feel like you're banging your head against the wall in a completely non-constructive fashion. I'm all for playing vs strong people to challenge yourself, but what exactly does playing at B level do for you if there's no underlying build/strategy? You play better players to improve, but its important to know WHAt you're improving. Otherwise, your throwing games away and confusing yourself unnecessarily.

The best builds i've ever developed have been those I thought about and tested from a D level and tweaked all the way up to A. Likewise, I found builds to avoid by theorizing and beginning at D level until I hit a mental wall at the B-/C+ level.

crap post that was longer than i expected

On March 13 2009 05:20 rushz0rz wrote:
I think it's stupid that a good player such as yourself, Day[9], smurfs with a "zillion different accounts." Be a MAN!

D zergs just aren't fun. They haven't learned how to deflect reaver harass yet, and that's the only thing I'm good at, whether it be the 1 base reaver/zealot all in or FE into sair/reaver. I'm surprised I win games with my terrible macro.

On March 13 2009 06:11 Divinek wrote:


He just explained himself...

On March 13 2009 06:35 rushz0rz wrote:


I wasn't being serious.

On March 13 2009 04:43 Archaic wrote:
Make a podcast! I'd love to listen to your lectures on a bus home, way to school, etc.

On April 02 2009 10:07 APurpleCow wrote:
As a D+ player, I can easily emphasize with thegasface. I went 70%ish last season, and then this season I had a 17 game loss streak, with at least 90% of my opponents having over 200apm. It's just insane how many players that aren't D are playing on the D ladder, and it can get very frustrating your, say, I dunno, 17th game in a row against a 400apm korean.