Yesterday's Draco afreeca replays.

On July 06 2006 21:09 HonestTea wrote:
Actually, I'll just post them here.

On July 06 2006 21:26 FunKiE wrote:
Yes, thanks, I had one but I didn't know if I was able to share them ;o.

On July 06 2006 23:14 jG]BeefcakeS wrote:
Once your at the pro level, you either learn to compensate for gay stuff, or start to suck. Look at the zergs that die, They just cant realise that 4 sunks and 12 lings wont save their asses.

On July 07 2006 01:06 IriS[YY] wrote:
Anyone knows Perfective's aka?

On July 07 2006 05:06 YoiChiBow wrote:


hanzo[fou]

On July 06 2006 21:39 YoiChiBow wrote:
gg's

but no offense ..draco's pvt isnt very good.( better than foreigners yes but that wont cut it in korea)

watch his games... he doesnt have a strong grasp on timing... he goes 5 gate always before his 2nd nat everygame.(cept that luna game vs perfective.. i think he went 6 gate ... and fell behind cuz of that).

No adapting at all.

On July 07 2006 06:22 Jathin wrote:


Way to suck logic straight out of the game. You can be far worse than Draco but still be in a position to say what he did right/wrong, as long as you have an understanding of the game. Isn't that the job of the commentators?

It's also easy to tell where a pro-gamer messed up. So "knowing" why pros are or aren't successful is easy to deduce after observing them enough. It's not like he said any one specific aspect of Draco's play is the sole source of failure (he said "timing," a rather broad statement).

And for the record, adaptability is a huge problem for pro-gamers. They seem to stick to the one build order/strategy they practiced because they're very comfortable with it. I also agree that Draco's PvT timing isn't where it needs to be to compete. Maybe he needs to play several games as a Terran to fully understand the timing.

Whether or not the timing on his gates were fine or not is up for debate, but to use "I think Draco would know best because he's better than you" is just ignorance speaking. Attitudes like that make me wonder if people really appreciate SC/Pro-Gaming, because if you take the standpoint that pro's are infallible then you're kind of just watching shit happen without thinking about the strategies behind it.

On July 07 2006 08:30 Live2Win wrote:


when I was watching the game on Afreeca, the guy who was commentating was talking about a babara starleague, and the winner of this match goes to the finals.

I guess a tourney thingy and it was bo3?

On July 07 2006 09:17 {88}iNcontroL's signature was:
tyranids rock.

On July 07 2006 07:32 RivetHead wrote:


the problem seems to be you are making a judgement of his whole pvt matchup and timing off of one game. he might have been jet lagged, tired, not taking it as serious as possible, or just having an off game.

another problem with your criticism is that you make its always so easy to see why someone loses. sure its easy to say draco got run over by superior macro and timing the game he lost, but then again why did he win the second game and his macro was fine. he adjusted to the opponant certaintly, but he also seemed to just play better in general the second game. maybe he wasnt warmed up or something.

sometimes its easy to spot mistakes progamers (or anyone, for that matter) make. we could say "oh damn, terran should have scanned for those stargates and found out carriers were coming before it was too late" and other such things when in fact the terran may have scanned everywhere but that one spot. other times, it doesnt seem to be so obvious why someone lost other than the victor was just better in some way that cant be seen so easily (better micro, slightly better macro, or just good timing)

of course you can watch the rep over and over again to see all the little things draco did wrong, which is most of the time the reason why would lose, because he isnt as good at doing at 100 little things at a time as progamers and doing something like putting up pylons too late or getting an upgrade too fast or taking a little too long to transfer workers.

On July 07 2006 09:22 bine wrote:


hahaha

when hurricane isabelle wreaked havoc on virginia when i was in highschool, our power was out for like a week. we dug out the ancient 40k armies we had and played for hours... it was so great.

the parallels to SC are striking though. aesthetically, toss is very similar to Eldar (dark eldar/DT, high eldar/HT etc.), tyranid is like identical to zerg, and come on, Space Marines? Even Chaos was like infested terrans.

On July 07 2006 09:35 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


SC is a complete robbery of War Hammer 40,000. Lings look EXACTLY like Gaunts and act basically the same way. The whole "Overmind" concept is completely "The Mind in the Warp" and how the Cerebrates / Overmind control the armies through the mind? Sooooooooo completely blatant.

It gets worse with Space Marines (didnt even change the name from the WH40K Space Marines).
And yeah Eldar --> Protoss so hard core. I dont blame Blizzard though. War hammer is fucking awsome and as far as original ideas go for races WH has done an incredible job.

On July 07 2006 09:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:

Ye, and Xel'naga = old ones?

Anyhow - A LOT of warhammer is obviously borrowed from alien / predator and the original book behind starship troopers

On July 06 2006 22:43 zulu_nation8 wrote:
yea but how hard is pvt compared to pvz at pro level, pj still cant pvz after a year or so while having world class pvt. I think Draco will have a much easier time because of that

On July 07 2006 11:05 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


War Hammer is almost 30 years old whereas Aliens / Predator was made in early 80's. Original book for Star Ship troopers originated MOST of the swarming alien concepts that are seen in science fiction. Star Ship troopers originated some concepts for perhaps Tyranids -> Aliens -> Zerg but nothing really more.

Released in 1987, the name was sub-titled 'Warhammer 40,000' in order to clearly differentiate it from 2000 AD's Rogue Trooper comic series. The game featured rules that were closely modelled on those of its older sister, Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

On July 07 2006 11:15 Mentos wrote:
he failed in the first game because of sloppy scouting, not build order, timing, or micro/macro.
he had his units divided in the moment terran pushed to the south expos, and it was already too late to gather it up and fight off. thats the moment where he lost the game, up to then it was even.
he uses a lot of build orders vs t. atm, if I was him, I'd use the safest one to test what those guys can do. once he gets used to their style of play, he will be able to adapt something else, right now its impossible.

On July 07 2006 11:34 Mortality wrote:
Easy to see where progamers mess up? I'd say that's far from true.

Sometimes it is easy to see where someone fails -- where someone fails to capitalize on a hole in his opponent's timing, where someone just has bad luck (scouts wrong direction and opponent cheeses on a large map, so doesn't see cheese until way too late), or where somebody's mechanics (control, macro, w/e) just aren't as good. But often times it's little things that compose themselves into a steady lead. Sometimes still a player does absolutely nothing wrong and loses because his opponent won the build war.

And then people on tl.net have the nerve to say retarded things like "so-and-so's build was horrible," blah blah blah blah blah. They don't understand why the progamer chose the build because they don't have the insight to understand all the options the progamer's opponent had and how that particular build countered those options.

Consider Boxer vs Pusan in this past OSL. Pusan went FE into DT's. Boxer used a fact/acad/fact build. Boxer won, so everyone on tl.net said Boxer was a genius and Pusan was retarded for using that build. Had Pusan won, everyone would have said Boxer was retarded and Pusan was a genius. The people making those remarks really have that crappy an understanding of the game.

The reality is just like Boxer said. Boxer lost in build orders and won in strategy (the strategy of getting faster scan at the cost of a slightly reduced army). Sometimes that just happens and its nobody's "fault."

On July 07 2006 13:05 Jathin wrote:
Trust me, Pusan didn't make a mistake in the So1 semifinals when he lost all his units to Boxer's army in ROV, despite the fact that his arbiter was seconds away from reaching his army. He's a pro gamer, I think he knows best.

On October 21 2005 04:39 Rekrul wrote:
lol gg pathetic build by boxer 3-0

On October 21 2005 04:40 Rekrul wrote:
PUSAN WHY ARE YOU 3 gATING just EXPO

though it doesn't matter, he'll still run over boxer i think, as long as he gets a robo soon

On October 21 2005 04:45 Rekrul wrote:
PUSAN STOP FISHING

PUSAN WITH SLIGHT ADV, BOXER NOT MANY SCVS

On October 21 2005 04:56 Rekrul wrote:
OMG WHAT A FISH LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

SUCKOUT

SICK SICK SICK

On October 21 2005 04:57 FireBlast! wrote:
... 2-1 Boxer's still alive and kicking

(but Pusan had this game 70% won, 3 gate was too much with pointless unit losses -_-;; )

On July 07 2006 16:11 FrozenArbiter wrote:


- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_Trader_(Warhammer_40,000)

On July 07 2006 05:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:

You mean Hanjo[fou], no?

On July 08 2006 05:54 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


I stand corrected! My perceptions were wrong! Ty FA for setting me right.

On July 08 2006 05:23 Plexa wrote:

However in the words of rekrul while the game was happening....
Pusan foils boxers rush;

Pusan builds another gate;

Game progresses abit more, boxer gains back lots of ground, no expo for pusan yet;

and afterwards;

and finally, in the words of fireblast


Can you seriously say that pusan didnt make a mistake in that game? i know he did- what about you :O

P.S. Draco fighting!!