|
My take:
People cheese less because cheese builds are typically weaker builds. Defenders advantage means a lot. Whilst not entirely weak, having a weaker build will lose you a starcraft game. Especially some of the querky builds sataNik mentioned! Of course you will probably do well with them because people are not used to these builds.
For example, the 6 fact off 2 base BO. Factories are 200/100 for goodness sake! Gate ways are cheaper, build faster, dont need machine shops and dont waste mining time whilst they build. If you drop 6 facts that I can stop for much less investment in production, I already have a free advantage. Then then terran has to attack, before upgrades and before mass.... the two good things about terran mech! It is simply a weaker build order than the standard ones today.
It is good to see that iccup players are plaing straight! Learning cheese gives you a build that will beat a small subset of builds. much better to work on standard play that you can use versus anything. Weaker players should be focusing on the basis not the flashy.
The benefit of cheese is really for boX play as any poker player will know. however I do think this is best left till the higher levels. At the higher levels cheese has its place. Once you have the fundamentals. I'm a b- player and Im certain that improving my macro will net me more games than learning some cheesy skills.
Also cheese does get the reputation (rightly so!) of being nooby, because as a noob its so much easier to win via cheese than a straight up game. Noobs are more likely to lose straight up and just don't understand how to punish failed cheese. However 1000 games down the line the cheesy noob will still be bad whereas the macro noob will crush him at every encounter.
Finally I think sataNik misses some of the point. The strategy variation just comes later in the game. Instead of 2 base>6fact we now have 3 base>10 fact etc. This is just a product of better knowledge. Sure non-progamers will not exactly have the necessary skills to be doing such unsafe macro builds they are doing, but what can we expect? People not to copy the builds they see progamers using as the 'best'?
Also this is forgetting that lategame is exciting. Big army movements are more pleasing to me than 10v10 units. Good tactics, strategy, control and scouting are nicer to see late game
Soulforged said it right
!+ Show Spoiler +TBH, I feel as if cheeses have a lower skill ceiling; as they happen in early game, they get solved at earlier levels. As in, the dynamics of greed-cautious-aggressive play are switched later in game the higher the skill level goes.
My personal feeling is that most of the unorthodox aggresion currently switched to mid game; it still exists, but just in a different time place.
As far as openings go, I feel that if I commit to an old school aggressive opening against an opponent that is considerably worse than me, but still good enough, he will be in a commanding position in case he opened cautiously. If he opened greedily, I'll probably kill anyone but someone vastly superior right away; if he also opened aggresively, our skill difference is the most important.
An example would be having B+ player cheesing every game and eventually losing to a C+ guy who knew how to decisevely handle this particular opening.
Now, if I open cautiously, I will always beat aggressive openings(unless I screw up something hardcore), and if I'm better than my opponent, I will catch up to greed as mid game goes on. Actually, simply surviving to late game is usually enough to handle inferior opponent, since his macro will start to slip earlier than mine, and a single wave of lacking units is enough to win a battle or at least take an expansion uncontested. Let alone all the harrass opportunities to make your opponent sweat.
If I was top tier korean pro, I'd certainly need to play aggressive a good amount of time in order to not get behind in metagame, specially as at a high level safe-greedy dynamics are also getting solved(specially PvP, imo, where build order advantages lately have been nearly insurmountable).
But I'm not. I'm not even A ranked; I still have room to grow in safe/greedy dinamics, and they improve my skillsets more, at least when I'm on ladder.
Also, it's a pride thing. Not satisfied with winning 60% of the time, although I'd be happy about it in poker heads up. BW, there's still plenty room to get soo good you'd win 80%+ iccup games at highest ranks opening the same cautious style every game.
Maybe it's just a matter of preference. When I feel like it, I still have plenty of aggressive/greedy follow-ups for 2 base play, although my 1base play is usually defensive/scouting oriented.
(For example, PvZ after FE there's like 10 allins\semi allins\solid timing pushes that you can pull off; and I like each one of them more than they 1base alternatives. Map dependant, of course)
|
I remember you owned me(I think my nick was DJ_nOIZE back then) on PGtour. Fuck you 
Good to have you back :D:D:D:D
|
On October 15 2011 02:39 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 21:42 Wohmfg wrote:On October 14 2011 16:41 Demonhunter04 wrote:On October 14 2011 09:43 Wohmfg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:38 sataNik[pG] wrote:On October 14 2011 09:09 Wohmfg wrote:On October 14 2011 08:58 2Pacalypse- wrote:Holy shit it's Satanik! <3 old school BWers, especially when they come back to playing BW  I sorta agree. A fine tuned, well prepared cheese is so awesome to watch and I agree that players on ICCup should play more "strategically" every now and then instead of solely working on their mechanics. But I also think that it's more fun to do these kind of things when you're playing against a same opponent for a lot of games, instead of random players on ladder. This way you can see each game how your opponent reacts and adapts to your "strategies". Yeah I agree with this. If you cheese every ladder opponent, you are rolling the dice with respect to the greed>cautious>cheese>greed dynamic. The better overall player, in my opinion, will win more often if both players play a macro game and forgo the RPS. If you are selecting a particular cheese vs a particular opponent then this in my eyes is much more skillful. Mind you that if I am cheesing almost every ladder its not because im in love with cheese, its only because i abuse the current trend of greed. When caution was the trend i was the one to greed. That was often the case when i had a cheesy image and people were too cautious when playing vs me. As for now, there is nothing that i can do better than to punish cheese with cautious play. When cheese gets me, i really give kudos to the guy. Because he is clever and he tricked me. Dont get me wrong, I surely respect the skill of dumb macro spamming to victory but there are other things in bw too. What im doing here is simply pointing out the ill concept that cheese is something low, or else i cant explain the all too common negativity and lack of manner after short games. If there is a trend of greed then you are doing nothing wrong, I'd only take issue if the games were split between greed and caution because then you'd be flipping a coin. I still am of the opinion that cheese is a lower skill than late game and macro ability. If I looked at the best cheeser in the world and a macro player with comparative skill, I would say the macro player was the better player (impossible to objectively measure skill in this instance). This is because I think a macro player will win more games than a cheese player, because the skillset of a macro player is much wider than the skillset required to be a good cheese player. Just my opinion though. Isn't Flash the best cheeser? That's partly my point. I honestly don't think Flash could become such a great cheeser without his late game ability, because late game ability requires great decision making and multitasking, among other things, which is required in a good cheese. There's a way of thinking, I think especially in foreign BW but I might be wrong, that macro is more skillful than cheese. I think the reason for that is because new players are told to work on their mechanics, and the best way to do that is take it to the late game. It's the quickest way to get good at the game. That's a huge reason why cheese is looked down upon (I look down upon it in some respects) because it doesn't help you improve anything but a very thin slice of skillsets. If you practice late game and macro, you become a player with great mechanics and decision making. If you practice cheese, you become good at mainly cheese. Well of course, the reason he's the best cheeser is not because of how he executes the cheese itself, which any pro could probably match, but because of which type of cheese he uses and when. This is the idea Satanik was conveying as well. Cheese based upon a coin flip is not so skillful. Cheese that is designed to exploit a scouted weakness in your opponent is, and should not be looked down upon.
Agreed completely.
|
On October 14 2011 07:20 sataNik[pG] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 07:08 ArvickHero wrote:
It sounds like you're saying strategies are stagnant nowadays, which is definitely not the case. Excuse me? 9/10 games pvz toss opens up with forge nexus. where are the numerous 1 base strats? or 2 gate exp? 4/5 games tvz terran goes 1 rax cc into mass m&m or mech. Where are the amazing 1 base plays: 1 rax acad fact pushes? 2 rax fact acad? or the 3 rax +1 sunk break timing? or the 2 rax m&m + dropship? or the vessel rush +1 m&m + tanks scoop? if u think these are invalid or weak strategies let me prove you wrong. almost every zerg goes for mutalisks tvz. nuff said
If you see that as stagnation, then there's nothing to argue over. Those builds are just too safe and too strong. Blame BW's balance for those builds working out the way they do.
|
It's not as if people are opening forge fe variants in PvZ every game because they've forgotten how to 1gate expo or are only opening forge fe because the pros do it every game. It's just that forge fe is safer and far more flexible. Can it really be helped that the fast expand builds give you much more options and actually make it harder to guess what is going to happen afterwards? It's so much easier to play against 1base openings.
|
|
|
I agree that protoss needs the expansion vs zerg to play an equal game, but he can take it in so
many different timings which are advantageous. Forge fe isnt the only option, perhaps its the safest
option but its passive. Toss can 2 gate zeal non stop probe build with light/medium pressure into expand, which may not be as safe, but its even more advantageous. Other safe and flexible options
which can expand in many different timings are the 2 gate zeal -> fast cors+leg and the 1 gate cors dt.
For TvZ however 1 base terran is a powerhouse no matter what he does. Just everything u can think
of is really strong. Fast expand TvZ is far more easily manageable from the zerg side because it doesnt pressure.
|
On October 14 2011 07:28 Kiante wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 07:26 sataNik[pG] wrote:On October 14 2011 07:18 Kiante wrote:
So what you're saying is using unusual styles based on scouting information and assumption of your opponents build.
all i see is you trying to get an easy win rather than trying to perfect your own macro builds immune to silly cheese Bobby fisher was often looking the chessboard from his opponents side. By trying to get an easy win when you are the aggressor u will not get a stupid loss when u are on the defensive. Because you will know the timing. Suppose you are a bad macro player with gaps in your bo. Its easier to get better by trying to find gaps in a good macro players bo and then watch how he counters it. How can you perfect your macro build if nobody crash tests it? You will just get a bad greedy style which is good only for macro vs macro. Of course i take into account cheese. I often try to work on improving my scouting and opening BO's to properly crush lame zerg cheese. You wanna be a crash test dummy? cool, but you'd probably find much more success in a tournament setting if u didn't just cheese ladder games and wank over how good you are
I think his point is that you'd probably find much more success if you didn't just greedily try to force macro games and wank over how good you are.
|
|
|
On October 15 2011 07:53 krndandaman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 06:05 sataNik[pG] wrote:
I agree that protoss needs the expansion vs zerg to play an equal game, but he can take it in so
many different timings which are advantageous. Forge fe isnt the only option, perhaps its the safest
option but its passive. Toss can 2 gate zeal non stop probe build with light/medium pressure into expand, which may not be as safe, but its even more advantageous. Other safe and flexible options
which can expand in many different timings are the 2 gate zeal -> fast cors+leg and the 1 gate cors dt.
For TvZ however 1 base terran is a powerhouse no matter what he does. Just everything u can think
of is really strong. Fast expand TvZ is far more easily manageable from the zerg side because it doesnt pressure. have you faced late mech switch and +1 5rax pressure ? it's so hard to deal with as a zerg... beatable, but you def have to work hard
http://starteam.ucoz.com/load/zvt/1-1-0-12
Generally, i dont even need to have more expands than terran to beat mech.
|
sataNik i'm a big fan of yours, but the problem is obviously that you play on iccup where the skill level has dramatically fallen over the last few seasons. PS, please upload zvp replays, i always loved your style in that MU
|
lol@new kids telling a pG member how to play
|
|
|
I wouldn't consider cheesing an art. If you are playing against someone with a cheese build you have prepared and thoroughly practiced and you win it doesn't mean you're better than your opponent. It just means your opponent hasn't practiced against that particular build enough to know how to defend it. If they did, your strategy would be obsolete.
There is no way its harder to cheese than it is to learn standard play. The opponent reacts to a cheese user, making it easier to become proficient at the build. Whereas learning standard play you have to respond to your opponents numerous possible openings properly otherwise you can die to a large number of potential timings. Also, cheese users don't need the knowledge of the game or mechanical proficiencies standard players require. This is why cheesy players like Kwanro have essentially been removed from professional gaming. Eventually players learn to beat their cheeses, and the cheese users don't have the skill sets and knowledge to easily become a standard player.
|
I remember me being a 13 year old brat that I was cheesing my cousin who have played the game hardcore 3 years consecutively while I have only picked it up 4 month prior to the games. We played Zerg vs Terran, me being Zerg and this was my build 2 hatch Lurker drop, 2 Hatch Muta with Overlord dropping Lings @ his base, 4 Hatch Zerglings, 4 Pool and if I can remember correctly I did something like 1 Hatch Lurkers. Bottom line, cheesing is fun!
|
On October 15 2011 08:35 tryummm wrote:
I wouldn't consider cheesing an art. If you are playing against someone with a cheese build you have prepared and thoroughly practiced and you win it doesn't mean you're better than your opponent. It just means your opponent hasn't practiced against that particular build enough to know how to defend it. If they did, your strategy would be obsolete.
There is no way its harder to cheese than it is to learn standard play. The opponent reacts to a cheese user, making it easier to become proficient at the build. Whereas learning standard play you have to respond to your opponents numerous possible openings properly otherwise you can die to a large number of potential timings. Also, cheese users don't need the knowledge of the game or mechanical proficiencies standard players require. This is why cheesy players like Kwanro have essentially been removed from professional gaming. Eventually players learn to beat their cheeses, and the cheese users don't have the skill sets and knowledge to easily become a standard player.
Kwanro retiring had nothing to do with not being able to win games. He was still doing fine up until he chose to retire. Suggesting any progamer only knows how to play cheese builds is ridiculous. Kwanro had an aggressive/cheesy playstyle but being a progamer he also could play a macro game at a top level (much better than any non-Korean).
Your first paragraph is just silly. Strategies don't become obsolete just because people practice against them. Knowing how to react to a certain situation and being able to execute the proper reaction are two very different things, especially since you have to consider your opponent's execution as well. Do you think a C+ terran could beat a 2 hatch muta all-in from Jaedong if he knows it's coming?
Besides, I think you really missed the point of the OP. He's not saying you should go 4 pool every game, he's just suggesting people should vary their builds more and not be afraid to take risks if their opponent gives them an opening.
|
On October 15 2011 08:35 tryummm wrote:
I wouldn't consider cheesing an art. If you are playing against someone with a cheese build you have prepared and thoroughly practiced and you win it doesn't mean you're better than your opponent. It just means your opponent hasn't practiced against that particular build enough to know how to defend it. If they did, your strategy would be obsolete.
There is no way its harder to cheese than it is to learn standard play. The opponent reacts to a cheese user, making it easier to become proficient at the build. Whereas learning standard play you have to respond to your opponents numerous possible openings properly otherwise you can die to a large number of potential timings. Also, cheese users don't need the knowledge of the game or mechanical proficiencies standard players require. This is why cheesy players like Kwanro have essentially been removed from professional gaming. Eventually players learn to beat their cheeses, and the cheese users don't have the skill sets and knowledge to easily become a standard player.
Let me enlighten you a bit, son.
Cheesing IS an art, because it is very difficult to pull off. Good use of cheesing is included to standard play. You dont start a game by saying "i will cheese". You just play the game normally
until you spot a weakness and you exploit it. Its like constantly trying to exploit weaknesses
and use timing vulnerabilities which can be as narrow as a few seconds. After you test them many times, you make your conclusions of whether they are valid or not. By using them vs the best and
most accurate players, you have the exact knowledge of when and where they are valid or invalid.
Every different map, every different set of starting positions changes everything.
The difference between fail and success can sometimes be only 1 second. The variations that you
have at your disposal are infinite. By being totally unpredictable and denying scouting you force them to either take risks, or play extremely cautiously. More often than not you may be playing standard but faking a cheese. Some other times you maybe playing a cheese while appearing to play standard. Show muta and go hydra, comsat scans spire and make drones instead of muta, laugh as he turrets up and you make transition to lurk ling defiler scourge. Move 12 empty overlords to his main and go all out frontal attack as he runs into his main in panic. Those are just some examples of the mindset. Cheese sux man, im not even cheesing. Its just the massive ignorance of what is and what isnt cheese that makes me use this word in order to be more understandable.
In fact i was very active at the era when the word cheese was invented. Guess what, it was invented by totaly ignorant noobs, which were clueless about timings, build orders and such, they just had a sheer willpower to win and fast hands. You think i enjoy playing this role? You think i got something to gain here? I have always been the silent type, enjoying my mass games vs good players in ladders and fine tuning my play to perfection. Its just the sad ass ignorant responses
i too often hear that made me even bother to open this thread.
As for the professional bw scene, let me inform you that cheese doesnt work because it is so commonly used in practice that its already mapped out. Because it was used, not because it was looked down at. Cheese is the abc of starcraft, learn it and you got strong fundamentals, skip it and have gaps in your style forever. Test it, face it, learn it, skip it. Dont dismiss it.
|
On October 15 2011 09:22 sataNik[pG] wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 15 2011 08:35 tryummm wrote:
I wouldn't consider cheesing an art. If you are playing against someone with a cheese build you have prepared and thoroughly practiced and you win it doesn't mean you're better than your opponent. It just means your opponent hasn't practiced against that particular build enough to know how to defend it. If they did, your strategy would be obsolete.
There is no way its harder to cheese than it is to learn standard play. The opponent reacts to a cheese user, making it easier to become proficient at the build. Whereas learning standard play you have to respond to your opponents numerous possible openings properly otherwise you can die to a large number of potential timings. Also, cheese users don't need the knowledge of the game or mechanical proficiencies standard players require. This is why cheesy players like Kwanro have essentially been removed from professional gaming. Eventually players learn to beat their cheeses, and the cheese users don't have the skill sets and knowledge to easily become a standard player. Let me enlighten you a bit, son. Cheesing IS an art, because it is very difficult to pull off. Good use of cheesing is included to standard play. You dont start a game by saying "i will cheese". You just play the game normally until you spot a weakness and you exploit it. Its like constantly trying to exploit weaknesses and use timing vulnerabilities which can be as narrow as a few seconds. After you test them many times, you make your conclusions of whether they are valid or not. By using them vs the best and most accurate players, you have the exact knowledge of when and where they are valid or invalid. Every different map, every different set of starting positions changes everything. The difference between fail and success can sometimes be only 1 second. The variations that you have at your disposal are infinite. By being totally unpredictable and denying scouting you force them to either take risks, or play extremely cautiously. More often than not you may be playing standard but faking a cheese. Some other times you maybe playing a cheese while appearing to play standard. Show muta and go hydra, comsat scans spire and make drones instead of muta, laugh as he turrets up and you make transition to lurk ling defiler scourge. Move 12 empty overlords to his main and go all out frontal attack as he runs into his main in panic. Those are just some examples of the mindset. Cheese sux man, im not even cheesing. Its just the massive ignorance of what is and what isnt cheese that makes me use this word in order to be more understandable. In fact i was very active at the era when the word cheese was invented. Guess what, it was invented by totaly ignorant noobs, which were clueless about timings, build orders and such, they just had a sheer willpower to win and fast hands. You think i enjoy playing this role? You think i got something to gain here? I have always been the silent type, enjoying my mass games vs good players in ladders and fine tuning my play to perfection. Its just the sad ass ignorant responses i too often hear that made me even bother to open this thread. As for the professional bw scene, let me inform you that cheese doesnt work because it is so commonly used in practice that its already mapped out. Because it was used, not because it was looked down at. Cheese is the abc of starcraft, learn it and you got strong fundamentals, skip it and have gaps in your style forever. Test it, face it, learn it, skip it. Dont dismiss it.
So you seem to be broadening your 'cheese' definition to include a lot of different plays. Cheese as I understand it is a strategy that will fail if it is scouted. It may not win if it is scouted (enemy played safe), it may not be easy to scout (hydra bust behind ling speed deny) but it will lose if scouted in time.
Then you go on to talk about some basic stuff. Aka not giving your opponent info and faking drops...? Pretty sure people know about this. Earlier you were advocating stuff like 1 basing. This is the stuff I would object to... its bad.
Essentially your asking non-pro players to have "[used a variety of strats] vs the best and
most accurate players, you have the exact knowledge of when and where they are valid or invalid.
Every different map, every different set of starting positions changes everything."? No my friend, better to practice standard.
|
On October 15 2011 09:36 Muff2n wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 09:22 sataNik[pG] wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 15 2011 08:35 tryummm wrote:
I wouldn't consider cheesing an art. If you are playing against someone with a cheese build you have prepared and thoroughly practiced and you win it doesn't mean you're better than your opponent. It just means your opponent hasn't practiced against that particular build enough to know how to defend it. If they did, your strategy would be obsolete.
There is no way its harder to cheese than it is to learn standard play. The opponent reacts to a cheese user, making it easier to become proficient at the build. Whereas learning standard play you have to respond to your opponents numerous possible openings properly otherwise you can die to a large number of potential timings. Also, cheese users don't need the knowledge of the game or mechanical proficiencies standard players require. This is why cheesy players like Kwanro have essentially been removed from professional gaming. Eventually players learn to beat their cheeses, and the cheese users don't have the skill sets and knowledge to easily become a standard player. Let me enlighten you a bit, son. Cheesing IS an art, because it is very difficult to pull off. Good use of cheesing is included to standard play. You dont start a game by saying "i will cheese". You just play the game normally until you spot a weakness and you exploit it. Its like constantly trying to exploit weaknesses and use timing vulnerabilities which can be as narrow as a few seconds. After you test them many times, you make your conclusions of whether they are valid or not. By using them vs the best and most accurate players, you have the exact knowledge of when and where they are valid or invalid. Every different map, every different set of starting positions changes everything. The difference between fail and success can sometimes be only 1 second. The variations that you have at your disposal are infinite. By being totally unpredictable and denying scouting you force them to either take risks, or play extremely cautiously. More often than not you may be playing standard but faking a cheese. Some other times you maybe playing a cheese while appearing to play standard. Show muta and go hydra, comsat scans spire and make drones instead of muta, laugh as he turrets up and you make transition to lurk ling defiler scourge. Move 12 empty overlords to his main and go all out frontal attack as he runs into his main in panic. Those are just some examples of the mindset. Cheese sux man, im not even cheesing. Its just the massive ignorance of what is and what isnt cheese that makes me use this word in order to be more understandable. In fact i was very active at the era when the word cheese was invented. Guess what, it was invented by totaly ignorant noobs, which were clueless about timings, build orders and such, they just had a sheer willpower to win and fast hands. You think i enjoy playing this role? You think i got something to gain here? I have always been the silent type, enjoying my mass games vs good players in ladders and fine tuning my play to perfection. Its just the sad ass ignorant responses i too often hear that made me even bother to open this thread. As for the professional bw scene, let me inform you that cheese doesnt work because it is so commonly used in practice that its already mapped out. Because it was used, not because it was looked down at. Cheese is the abc of starcraft, learn it and you got strong fundamentals, skip it and have gaps in your style forever. Test it, face it, learn it, skip it. Dont dismiss it. So you seem to be broadening your 'cheese' definition to include a lot of different plays. Cheese as I understand it is a strategy that will fail if it is scouted. It may not win if it is scouted (enemy played safe), it may not be easy to scout (hydra bust behind ling speed deny) but it will lose if scouted in time. Then you go on to talk about some basic stuff. Aka not giving your opponent info and faking drops...? Pretty sure people know about this. Earlier you were advocating stuff like 1 basing. This is the stuff I would object to... its bad. Essentially your asking non-pro players to have "[used a variety of strats] vs the best and most accurate players, you have the exact knowledge of when and where they are valid or invalid. Every different map, every different set of starting positions changes everything."? No my friend, better to practice standard.
You are totally missing the point, i'm afraid. If a certain strategy is bad at pro level, it doesn't mean
that its bad at a medium level or at a low level. Its like playing chess, your opponent makes a mistake in opening and you have mate in 4 moves but you refuse to deviate from the grandmaster
play that u saw and proceed to an endgame where u got a slight advantage. You will never be good by copying others, no matter how good they are. You will become decent in short time but u will never be gosu, you will be adequate but superficial. Your play will be 1-dimentional. Nevertheless, you may even become a pro in tvp, pvt or tvt(dull matchups). Terran in particular is a notoriously strong race for a no brain skillhand bot style.
|
On October 15 2011 06:05 sataNik[pG] wrote:
I agree that protoss needs the expansion vs zerg to play an equal game, but he can take it in so
many different timings which are advantageous. Forge fe isnt the only option, perhaps its the safest
option but its passive. Toss can 2 gate zeal non stop probe build with light/medium pressure into expand, which may not be as safe, but its even more advantageous. Other safe and flexible options
which can expand in many different timings are the 2 gate zeal -> fast cors+leg and the 1 gate cors dt.
For TvZ however 1 base terran is a powerhouse no matter what he does. Just everything u can think
of is really strong. Fast expand TvZ is far more easily manageable from the zerg side because it doesnt pressure.
yeah but 1 base fe is much stronger mid game
as a terran who saw 1 base 2 barrack play starting to fail more and more vs 12 hatch into anything, there is a good reason why people now go fe even when the metagame has zergs doing 2 hatch muta which is hard to stop
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
