|
On October 22 2017 21:44 BigFan wrote: ^ please use the edit button next time for that earlier triple post lol. We usually action for that but rather avoid having to do so ^^
sorry, posting on your phone can make you lazy... plus it avoided making it look like one big wall of text
|
On October 22 2017 21:07 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: I am curious to know now who is right regarding the Larva vs Rain series. Disregarding Kwark's harsh comments, did Rain play the series that badly? A lot of people found that series entertaining, but that doesnt necessarily mean that Rain didnt play bad.
Despite me being a Terran player who has absolutely no idea how to play PvZ, I strongly disagreed with a lot of more knowledgeable fellow posters that Rain had to kill Larva during that game or risk being overrun by a 4 base Zerg. And Kwark seems to share the same opinion -- and to an even greater degree by saying that Rain had "already won". I just thought that Rain wouldnt be at a disadvantage even if he doesnt break Larva.
If Kwark really thought Rain screwed up the games that badly, I can understand the harsh words he had to say. I would like to know though (just to improve my understanding of PvZ), how badly did Rain screw up? You have Kwark on one end saying he had no idea how to play PvZ (at least vs a turtle zerg). And the others saying he did what he needed to do but Larva played amazing defense. I am tilting towards Kwark's analysis. These busts look impressive when they work but a really good player is one who can gauge whether they would succeed or not. If you always just go for the bust and they just work most of the time on account of being that much better than your opponent, its no longer that impressive.
I would like to stress that I also was very impressed with Larva's defense. Its just that Rain played straight into his hands by apparently playing the only way he knows how. The battle report basically can be summed up by "Rain, you played bad because you didn't win". If this is what you want, you're in the right place I guess.
|
Rain played a great series. He came prepared but Larva came prepared too. Therefore we saw one of the best PvZ series this year with excellent Jaedong-like scourge defense and same level of shuttle harass. You could see that the game could tilt into anyone's favor had this one made an error just in the right time. Larva was relentless and basically scraped his victory which only confirms that Rain tried really hard to win throwing any possible toss trick you can imagine nowadays, he even used arbiters! Does it sound like he didn't have a clue what to do? Well, maybe KwarK could beat Larva, who knows, at least he is trying to claim that he understands more than Rain in PvZ.
|
On October 22 2017 20:07 bigmetazltank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2017 18:28 Zealgoon wrote: I think this is the first time I heard someone telling a player to "quit Starcraft" in a battle report. Yeah, Rain's decision making in these games was questionable, but that's a bit too much.
What's so ridiculous about doing storm drops in PvZ anyway? Storm drops' purpose is two-fold. Its to kill the economy, yes, but its also there to help slow down the zerg/mess with their macro by forcing them to spend a macro cycle building drones rather than offensive units. I dunno the number but it feels like a very high percentage of Bisu's storm drops happen around the time he's planning or had a big army engage. The problem with Rain's storm drops are that they don't really achieve the second purpose because Larva had a huge number of hatches and didn't really play a game that depended on a strong economy. Namely because Rain wasn't doing anything with his map control after Larva said "go ahead, take it I don't plan on having a huge standing army". All Larva really needed was enough income to support base defense because of Rain's constant aggression. So there wasn't any reason for Rain to actually keep doing storm drops. All he's doing is throwing 300/300 to kill like 8 drones...which given the number of bases and Larva's playstyle doesn't achieve a whole lot except make Larva mine out slower. We've seen a lot of protoss players throw games away by constantly doing storm drops only to end up starving themselves out because the protoss fails to secure enough mining bases while counter-intuitively helping the zerg mine out slower. All the credit to Larva for some good play and in-series decision making (dude quickly figured out to straight turtle) but Kwark, while needlessly telling him to quit Starcraft, is pretty right in his assessment. Rain did was the equivalent of the Houston Rocket's offense - you're going to bust most teams in the regular season but you're going to die in the post-season because teams know your offensive is one dimensional and is extremely tiring to execute correctly. That's basically what happened here. Thanks for the post. I still think the storm drops weren't such a terrible idea - forcing zerg to spend larvae on drones is almost always good, and since Rain was ahead economically he could afford small trades. But perhaps I'm projecting myself on much better players; I know I find storm drops very obnoxious when I'm behind in ZvP.
|
Rain's play was garbage. He's a good player who beats top 10 guys when he's in form. But the guy who showed up played reckless, careless and just terrible. Even if he won the series nothing would change how his mistakes did not look like a top BW player sorry. It's tough beating a successfully turtling Zerg but Larva was by no means doing anything BUT that during a long period which any top player of Rain's caliber would at least have capitalized on. Even the commentators were doing their best not to say that he was playing terribly. Watch the games again
|
Bisu vs Killer spoilers + Show Spoiler +If Kwark thinks a very close series with multiple VERY close losses means Rain can't play PvZ at all I would be interested to see his comments on Killer who clearly doesn't actually play starcraft given how badly he lost every game.
OR maybe Starcraft is hard and you sometimes play well and still lose.
Seems very results oriented, "he lost so what he did was bad", I doubt the recap would have said that rain won despite his strategy if he had succeeded with winning those games (which he very nearly did by my reckoning)
|
On October 22 2017 23:30 Broodwar4lyf wrote: Rain's play was garbage. He's a good player who beats top 10 guys when he's in form. But the guy who showed up played reckless, careless and just terrible. Even if he won the series nothing would change how his mistakes did not look like a top BW player sorry. It's tough beating a successfully turtling Zerg but Larva was by no means doing anything BUT that during a long period which any top player of Rain's caliber would at least have capitalized on. Even the commentators were doing their best not to say that he was playing terribly. Watch the games again Can you please tell us what exactly was "reckless, careless and just terrible" in Rain's play? Honestly, I am amused to find out Also, what was that exactly that "any top player would have capitalized on" against Larva?
|
United States40729 Posts
On October 22 2017 23:55 letian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2017 23:30 Broodwar4lyf wrote: Rain's play was garbage. He's a good player who beats top 10 guys when he's in form. But the guy who showed up played reckless, careless and just terrible. Even if he won the series nothing would change how his mistakes did not look like a top BW player sorry. It's tough beating a successfully turtling Zerg but Larva was by no means doing anything BUT that during a long period which any top player of Rain's caliber would at least have capitalized on. Even the commentators were doing their best not to say that he was playing terribly. Watch the games again Can you please tell us what exactly was "reckless, careless and just terrible" in Rain's play? Honestly, I am amused to find out Also, what was that exactly that "any top player would have capitalized on" against Larva? Rain had the games 110% in the bag by having map control, an insurmountable economic and army advantage, and control of all the remaining expansion sites. But instead of taking them, putting cannons, ht, reavers and so forth at them, and simply waiting for Larva to mine out, he went allin trying to break Larva.
It was reckless because the upside of the attacks, if they worked, was winning a won game slightly sooner. Whereas the downside, if they failed, was potentially losing the game.
|
On October 23 2017 00:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2017 23:55 letian wrote:On October 22 2017 23:30 Broodwar4lyf wrote: Rain's play was garbage. He's a good player who beats top 10 guys when he's in form. But the guy who showed up played reckless, careless and just terrible. Even if he won the series nothing would change how his mistakes did not look like a top BW player sorry. It's tough beating a successfully turtling Zerg but Larva was by no means doing anything BUT that during a long period which any top player of Rain's caliber would at least have capitalized on. Even the commentators were doing their best not to say that he was playing terribly. Watch the games again Can you please tell us what exactly was "reckless, careless and just terrible" in Rain's play? Honestly, I am amused to find out Also, what was that exactly that "any top player would have capitalized on" against Larva? Rain had the games 110% in the bag by having map control, an insurmountable economic and army advantage, and control of all the remaining expansion sites. But instead of taking them, putting cannons, ht, reavers and so forth at them, and simply waiting for Larva to mine out, he went allin trying to break Larva. It was reckless because the upside of the attacks, if they worked, was winning a won game slightly sooner. Whereas the downside, if they failed, was potentially losing the game. Well, maybe we can translate this into Korean and send to Rain because he probably thinks it wasn't that close. Hell, he might even thank you for pointing out his mistakes.
|
Very entertaining write-up, Kwark, even if a bit over the top! Rain should not "quit starcrft," but learn from this series and make adjustments to how he proceeds about winning games when he is ahead. Rain could go far in the next ASL.
|
I think Kwark's analysis is entirely right. Also, enough with the tired argument that a commentator cannot possibly assess what a progamer did wrong in a game. No, Kwark doesn't need to translate it to Korean and send it to Rain. Think about how silly that statement is. Rain did play poorly. Progamers aren't infallible beings.
Anyone with an understanding of what they're watching would be throwing their hands up asking why Rain is suiciding 200/200 armies into huge static defense against a Zerg that is doing nothing but turtling, while the P has complete map control, a huge supply advantage, and untaken expansions all over the place. Rain's play reminded me of my own, i.e. impatience is my greatest weakness.
The "quit starcraft" etc. comments are a bit much but I don't think it's serious. I assume Rain will learn from his mistakes. I have no doubt he's analyzed the replays and come to many of the same conclusions that Kwark himself did.
|
On October 23 2017 02:18 Ganfei2 wrote: I think Kwark's analysis is entirely right. Also, enough with the tired argument that a commentator cannot possibly assess what a progamer did wrong in a game. No, Kwark doesn't need to translate it to Korean and send it to Rain. Think about how silly that statement is. Rain did play poorly. Progamers aren't infallible beings.
Anyone with an understanding of what they're watching would be throwing their hands up asking why Rain is suiciding 200/200 armies into huge static defense against a Zerg that is doing nothing but turtling, while the P has complete map control, a huge supply advantage, and untaken expansions all over the place. Rain's play reminded me of my own, i.e. impatience is my greatest weakness.
The "quit starcraft" etc. comments are a bit much but I don't think it's serious. I assume Rain will learn from his mistakes. I have no doubt he's analyzed the replays and come to many of the same conclusions that Kwark himself did. It's pretty simple. This is not a personal blog (in which case it would be totally ok) but a community site. So if you do write things, please at least try to look objective by focusing not only on one player (just count how many times he started a sentence with Rain did this and Rain did that) or don't write at all if you value you work and time. Personally, I don't like such approach because it clouds what was actually going on in the game. And please, Rain didn't play bad ffs because if he played bad then I think for about 10 years of watching BW, I learnt fucking nothing.
Anyone else with his 5 cents on how Rain played poorly because he didn't win?
|
United States40729 Posts
On October 23 2017 01:27 letian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2017 00:56 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2017 23:55 letian wrote:On October 22 2017 23:30 Broodwar4lyf wrote: Rain's play was garbage. He's a good player who beats top 10 guys when he's in form. But the guy who showed up played reckless, careless and just terrible. Even if he won the series nothing would change how his mistakes did not look like a top BW player sorry. It's tough beating a successfully turtling Zerg but Larva was by no means doing anything BUT that during a long period which any top player of Rain's caliber would at least have capitalized on. Even the commentators were doing their best not to say that he was playing terribly. Watch the games again Can you please tell us what exactly was "reckless, careless and just terrible" in Rain's play? Honestly, I am amused to find out Also, what was that exactly that "any top player would have capitalized on" against Larva? Rain had the games 110% in the bag by having map control, an insurmountable economic and army advantage, and control of all the remaining expansion sites. But instead of taking them, putting cannons, ht, reavers and so forth at them, and simply waiting for Larva to mine out, he went allin trying to break Larva. It was reckless because the upside of the attacks, if they worked, was winning a won game slightly sooner. Whereas the downside, if they failed, was potentially losing the game. Well, maybe we can translate this into Korean and send to Rain because he probably thinks it wasn't that close. Hell, he might even thank you for pointing out his mistakes. I have no doubt that Rain has already been told as much by anyone he has asked for feedback.
|
United States40729 Posts
Imagine a TvP in which the Terran opened one base wallin into siege tanks and missile turrets above their ramp. If the Protoss were to go one base mass dragoons trying to break that would you ask that I applaud the Terran's sick holds? And if the Protoss were to keep attacking in the same futile way while the Terran slowly massed battlecruisers, would you insist that I focus more on what the Terran was doing right than the Protoss was doing wrong?
Larva got himself into a position with no map control, a smaller army, a weaker economy, and basically no chance of turning games 3 and 4 into a victory without serious help from his opponent. Take game 3. Larva had two mining bases, no map control, a smaller army, and no control over any of the untaken bases. Then Rain decided to recall most of his army up to a high ground with no resources where the only exit was down a narrow ramp into mass sunkens, and leave them up there for the entire rest of the game. Larva didn't trick him into doing that. Larva didn't kill his arbiters to prevent him from recalling them back down. Larva didn't put scourge to stop shuttles evacuating Rain's army. Rain decided that he needed to put his army where the resources weren't and leave it up there.
|
On October 23 2017 02:18 Ganfei2 wrote:
Anyone with an understanding of what they're watching would be throwing their hands up asking why Rain is suiciding 200/200 armies into huge static defense against a Zerg that is doing nothing but turtling, while the P has complete map control, a huge supply advantage, and untaken expansions all over the place. Rain's play reminded me of my own, i.e. impatience is my greatest weakness.
Middle expansions on Gold Rush are very very open. So if Rain sat back on 200/200 trying to secure them, he would only give Larva time to grow his army. Larva wasn't asleep during the game, he also didn't go grab a coffee, so he would quickly realize that Rain backed off. It would give Larva an opportuinity to close gap in supply (he wouldn't need to spend resources on defense and larvae on scourges/drones) and to plague Rains whole 200/200. With defilers, zerglings and lurkers it would be VERY VERY easy for Larva to overrun those widely open middle expansions if Rain sat back on 200/200 and waited for him. Especially considering zergs 200/200 is much scarier than protoss 200/200.
Therefore I think Rain made good decision to try and break Larva. He played very well, almost winning this game. Larvas control was slightly better, so he was able to shut down Rains harassment and come on top. It doesn't mean that Rain played badly. It also doesn't mean Rain should quit playing StarCraft. If you say something like that about ASL ro8 player, then you are not any different from typical twitch chat hater/troll.
When you analyze this game, please take into consideration that there were 2 people playing in this game.
Edit: Also one more thing. When Rain recalled into Larva's base, only expansions on Larva side of the map weren't secured. So you think that Rain would be better trying to secure these instead of putting pressure and prevent Larva from taking them? :D
|
On October 22 2017 23:08 letian wrote: The battle report basically can be summed up by "Rain, you played bad because you didn't win". If this is what you want, you're in the right place I guess.
On October 23 2017 03:47 letian wrote: It's pretty simple. This is not a personal blog (in which case it would be totally ok) but a community site.
Anyone else with his 5 cents on how Rain played poorly because he didn't win? I don't see where the "Rain played poorly because he didn't win" is coming from.
I sympathize with your comment on how this is an official recap and not a personal blog; and Kwark could have been more professional in how he criticized Rain, which certainly could have facilitated a more civilized and objective discussion instead of turning some people off completely and writing off the analysis as rubbish. I personally found the harshness a little entertaining.
On October 23 2017 04:32 Netto. wrote: Especially considering zergs 200/200 is much scarier than protoss 200/200.
Therefore I think Rain made good decision to try and break Larva. Okay Kwark, just for the sake of improving my understanding of PvZ, please tell me whether the aforementioned statements are true or not. Well, probably just the first one, we all already know what you think of the second.
|
[QUOTE]On October 23 2017 04:39 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: [QUOTE]On October 22 2017 23:08 letian wrote:
[QUOTE]On October 23 2017 04:32 Netto. wrote: Especially considering zergs 200/200 is much scarier than protoss 200/200.
Therefore I think Rain made good decision to try and break Larva.[/QUOTE] Okay Kwark, just for the sake of improving my understanding of PvZ, please tell me whether the aforementioned statements are true or not. Well, probably just the first one, we all already know what you think of the second.[/QUOTE]
In an open field, yes zerg's 200/200 full tech army is scarier.
When it comes to defending however protoss top tech (dark archons, reavers and templar sat on cannons) is almost unbreakable by zerg. If you are sat on 200/200 as protoss, you generally have nothing to gain from zerg catching up.
|
200/200 pvz really depends on composition. A ridiculous pvz army with archons, dark archons, ht, some reavers is quite hard to deal with, but to build up that kind of army is... pretty rare and difficult, and still vulnerable to mass guardians.
200/200 mass zealots vs like, 150/200 hydralurker is gonna get slaughtered though.
|
TLADT24917 Posts
On October 22 2017 18:57 Heartland wrote: My god this was a big post. Maybe you should have considered splitting it in two? It was a very nice set of battlereports and good info on the Bisu/Killer game too! Our coverage typically includes recap of games played, preview of upcoming groups and another section like a BR etc... It's been that way since before I joined staff so chances of that changing is low. I wrote about this in my 20k blog if you want more info. I can always ask KwarK to be more concise with the recaps but I think having indepth recaps is always great ^^
|
On October 23 2017 04:03 KwarK wrote: Imagine a TvP in which the Terran opened one base wallin into siege tanks and missile turrets above their ramp. If the Protoss were to go one base mass dragoons trying to break that would you ask that I applaud the Terran's sick holds? And if the Protoss were to keep attacking in the same futile way while the Terran slowly massed battlecruisers, would you insist that I focus more on what the Terran was doing right than the Protoss was doing wrong?
Larva got himself into a position with no map control, a smaller army, a weaker economy, and basically no chance of turning games 3 and 4 into a victory without serious help from his opponent. Take game 3. Larva had two mining bases, no map control, a smaller army, and no control over any of the untaken bases. Then Rain decided to recall most of his army up to a high ground with no resources where the only exit was down a narrow ramp into mass sunkens, and leave them up there for the entire rest of the game. Larva didn't trick him into doing that. Larva didn't kill his arbiters to prevent him from recalling them back down. Larva didn't put scourge to stop shuttles evacuating Rain's army. Rain decided that he needed to put his army where the resources weren't and leave it up there.
Regardless of the actual analysis, half the problem we have is the way things were written, extremely biased (in a bad way) towards rain, with comments like "Quit Starcraft. Really."
I'm sure you'd agree that was overkill.
|
|
|
|