EPTArtosis's Spirit VODs - Page 50
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
EGMachine
United States1643 Posts
| ||
|
ReiKo
Croatia1023 Posts
I was quoting Nytefish , not you...next time pay more attention. Thanks. And about "allin", it wasn't allin strategy, but I dont want to argue about that one with you because you will be hard nut to crack anyways, but if it was allin, don't you know that Protoss needs to gamble a littlebit to maybe...I don't know... win PvT? What do you want, him to sit at home and wait for your 2-2 200/200 metal? | ||
|
Juanpe
Uruguay283 Posts
On September 20 2008 10:42 IdrA wrote: who said my comment was based off that game? and yes, it was an allin. he was 2 base rushing arb vs 3 base, and he attacked. had the attack failed he woulda been left with less bases than his opponent pvt, which is pretty much instaloss, and he had less production than normal cuz he invested in temp and arb tech. if the attack failed, he would lose. thats the definition of an allin. On September 20 2008 15:31 Machine[USA] wrote: ohh yea greg, you think your so fucking smart? sometimes starcraft isnt all about outplaying your opponent, did you ever think of that? Fucking retard, Backho is a progamer, does he have micro/macro/multitasking? Yes but comperable to a 4 year old girl with no hands. He wins games, see greg this game isnt all about being a moreskilled/smarter player than your opponent, their are some gamblers out their whos who strategy is to have no strategy. Someday maby youll grow a fucking brain and figure out why Chile is ranked 2nd on overall nation's in gosugamers. Sometimes you gotta just roll the fucking dice. On September 20 2008 16:22 ReiKo wrote: @ Idra I was quoting Nytefish , not you...next time pay more attention. Thanks. And about "allin", it wasn't allin strategy, but I dont want to argue about that one with you because you will be hard nut to crack anyways, but if it was allin, don't you know that Protoss needs to gamble a littlebit to maybe...I don't know... win PvT? What do you want, him to sit at home and wait for your 2-2 200/200 metal?  Btw, poor Fenix... hope he can still go to S. Korea... | ||
|
EGMachine
United States1643 Posts
| ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7707 Posts
| ||
|
Jaskwith
United States197 Posts
| ||
|
frs.
Finland9 Posts
 thanks | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
I hate people like you who are watching a replay, see one player win comfortably, but still shit talk about him because his minerals went over 4K in a game which he easily controled thanks to better strategy... | ||
|
ReiKo
Croatia1023 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
Now, if we could all let the celebration of Artosis's gr9 AMAZING VODs continue... I'm very much looking forward to all the RO8 games PS: + Show Spoiler + Watch Fenix's game against IdrA and do this exercise carefully: Copy his build order up to the point when he makes the DT drop, and then just ignore the shuttle and continue to macro. Come up with the best build possible that continues to have the same amount of offensive/harrass units at the same time Fenix has, but create the best economy and any surplus units you can. I'd wager that in one practice session (~3 hours?) a C player could utterly destroy Fenix's macro in that game. A prospective progamer's macro shouldn't drop below C level just because he's controlling some offensive units at the same time. Now consider how often a TvZ player has to control his units and macro at the same time... | ||
|
ReiKo
Croatia1023 Posts
Protoss must gamble. Most of Protoss "high win" openings are somewhat gambling. When I play Protoss I feel like gambling, because I know if i fail I will suffer bad from my mistake, but if I do it right, I know I will make good profit of it. Let's just say that if one choses Protoss and goes strategy that is somewhat "suprise" ( even with that, if you are "progamer" you shoud scout it) and he executes it right and do well in other areas of game while doing it, there is no reason to insult his mechanics. | ||
|
d1v
Sweden868 Posts
| ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
| ||
|
aTnClouD
Italy2428 Posts
I was the kind of player that would only feel comfortable with macro builds and practiced myself on the same solid builds over and over again without thinking too much at abusing opponents' builds flaws. Just maxing as fast as possible and roll my opponents over and over again while having the whole map. But this doesn't work against good players. When I began playing a little more smartly I started winning significantly against decent players. In the end the conclusion I got from this is that if someone wants to practice seriously to have good results he just needs to work hard on every aspect of the game at the same time, trying to win every game in the fastest way he can. Of course some people could hit walls on certain things and stop their improvement because they have left behind some basic stuff while emerging in other aspects, but well not everyone is supposed to have the amazing learning abilities of Flash. And btw I don't really think Fenix lacks mechanics. He can macro pretty good while attacking and expanding at the same time. He rather seems the kind of player who can't manage too well to integrate the thoughts into his standard play and vice versa. But well he is young and his multitasking has still plenty of room for growth, so I don't really get along with the Fenix bashing here, even tho I still think he is quite clueless pvz :p | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On September 21 2008 00:24 ReiKo wrote: Well, Fenix's build wasn't macro oriented, he was hoping that his DT drop will do enough damage to get some time and distract Idra and there get his chance to win a game. I don't see a point following his BO and then not using DT's and Shuttle, it has no sense, he put all his hopes on mechanics (that Idra spit on, because he lost ) and of factor of suprise (Sun Tzu said himself that suprise is sharper than any sword , so who are we to say it's "all in strategy"). Protoss must gamble. Most of Protoss "high win" openings are somewhat gambling. When I play Protoss I feel like gambling, because I know if i fail I will suffer bad from my mistake, but if I do it right, I know I will make good profit of it. Let's just say that if one choses Protoss and goes strategy that is somewhat "suprise" ( even with that, if you are "progamer" you shoud scout it) and he executes it right and do well in other areas of game while doing it, there is no reason to insult his mechanics. It doesn't matter if a build is macro-oriented or not. It can still show good macro or bad macro. Here I tried Fenix's build and did much better macro while keeping the offensive attacks at least as fast: http://repdepot.net/download.php?type=rep&id=6389&name=k vs Delta Squadron.rep 2 DT drop + shuttle travel vertically: faster by 10+ seconds 2 HT drop + shuttle: faster by 10+ seconds 1 Group goons + 1 group speed z's + 4 HT drop attack at front: faster by 15+ seconds And the main thing is that, on top of that, I fit another Nexus in (to the min only) and more probes. My supply is soaring above Fenix's. I could continue to make the same amount of units and have a surplus to expand, tech, upgrade, build cannons, etc. It is equally as good or better than what Fenix did in every way and that's because it had better macro. So I was saying that any C player could have figured out the build I did in this replay without much effort (a few hours in single player, max). And any C player can macro like that, so long as they don't have to micro at the same time (the shuttles and templars). Therefore, Fenix's macro drops below C level when he has to control 1 shuttle for harrass at the same time. I don't know what Sun Tzu has to do with anything, but I can tell you who me and IdrA are to say it's an all-in strategy. We are MUCH MUCH better players than pretty much everyone on this forum, and IdrA is a PROGAMER. It's fine for players to gamble once in a while, but that has nothing to do with this discussion of Fenix's mechanics. No matter what build a player chooses, he can make it better or worse with his macro/micro. Just because Fenix chooses a high-risk, gambling "strategic" build does not mean that his mechanics can't be judged. | ||
|
ReiKo
Croatia1023 Posts
It's Idra's ridicilous explanation why he is lost, ofcourse it's hard to say that other player was just better that game... but I supose blaming on strategy is always OK. Even so, if someone on like Idra says it's "all-in" shoudn't it be littlebit contradicotry? I mean, if you think you are "very high level" and die from "all-ins" that bassicly all real progamers wait because they will scout it, defend it and then punish it? It's like, when I play motw Luna the Final on iccup, PvP and player goes 3 gates vs my tech and I lost and after that I cry that he went "all in". No, I failed to scout it, I failed to defend it, he did exploit my tech, and he deserved to win. EOD. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
All Idra said is he didn't lose to the mechanics of Fenix, he lost to the build. He didn't say he was "very high level" or even that he was better than Fenix. All these posts about "all-ins are as good as macro wins"... Idra hasn't disagreed with that statement. | ||
|
violett
Germany143 Posts
he only focused on his perfect macro if he would had split some sieged tanks on cliff he wouldnt had lost the whole game on this attack, only some scv and maybe the natural expand. u could also say, that a C player could have defended better than idra. | ||
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
Tropics
United Kingdom1132 Posts
Just because you failed to scout it and screwed up defending it doesn't mean it wasn't all in. If I get 8 rax bunker rushed from the middle of python and lose to it because I didn't see it it doesn't change the fact it's an all-in strategy. However you justify your loss doesn't change anything. "EOD" | ||
| ||
