EPTCriticize the BM, and unless you don't suck ass compared to him, don't criticize the gameplay.
Idra vs Strelok-Great Game And Fun! - Page 10
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
shafiru
111 Posts
Criticize the BM, and unless you don't suck ass compared to him, don't criticize the gameplay. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On March 21 2009 21:26 IdrA wrote: macro is my strength I don't get this, everyone says it. Plexa and Chill preludes the liquibetion with talk about idras macro idra himself talks about his macro but seriously just take this game as an example: Look at the after game stats, idra produced way _less_ units than strelok while at the same time killing slightly _more_. Now of course he lost like all his scvs to wraiths but imo this is something that repeats itself throughout every idra game I have ever seen. Compared to other players about his level his micro is absolutely stellar while his macro seem to slip more often than not. Where does this talk about idra's macro come from really? The fact that he preferes defensive openings has nothing to do with how he choses to split his time between micro/macro in the midgame. I am probably missing something obvious though :p | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
On March 21 2009 22:55 shafiru wrote: Also, I love how some random TL scrubs are criticizing IdrA on his skill when he could roll them with their offraces. Criticize the BM, and unless you don't suck ass compared to him, don't criticize the gameplay. In starcraft, we could all beat every single one of the greatest strategic minds in the history of world. Does that mean we can't learn anything from them to improve our game? You can learn something from literally everyone. | ||
|
I3oxerfan
215 Posts
On March 21 2009 22:55 shafiru wrote: Also, I love how some random TL scrubs are criticizing IdrA on his skill when he could roll them with their offraces. Criticize the BM, and unless you don't suck ass compared to him, don't criticize the gameplay. You are an idiot. We can ciriticize the gameplay of better players. It has nothing to do, if we are better or not. A commentator for soccer can criticize the play of a team, even if he he can not play soccer himself very well. A theorizer for chess can ciriticize a game of chess of the best chess player, even if he would never win against him. | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On March 21 2009 23:04 I3oxerfan wrote: You are an idiot. We can ciriticize the gameplay of better players. It has nothing to do, if we are better or not. A commentator for soccer can criticize the play of a team, even if he he can not play soccer himself very well. A theorizer for chess can ciriticize a game of chess of the best chess player, even if he would never win against him. So you pretend to know every strategic possibility, counter, maneuver, and etc. just from watching reps and playing at whatever lower level you play? Please, don't come back to this thread because you will be flamed to oblivion for your ignorance. You can't know the metagame IdrA was playing/seeing and the situational decisions IdrA had to make. Just like someone else, maybe IdrA, said before, the foreigner understanding of SC is so low compared to pro gamers. Similarly, your understanding of the game is so poor compared to IdrA's. Of course you could comment something like "mismicro here" or something, but knowing the what and why of the builds that either player took isn't your cup of tea. None of us commenting here are pro-level trained players like IdrA is. Hence, none of us can comment on the strategic nuances of the game beyond a guess or a shot in the dark, relative to his understanding. Anything you say is a GUESS, what IdrA admits about the game is more or less FACT. End of story. I'm not going to defend his BM beyond saying that 95% of us do it at one point or another. You think that just because it's a match between Strelok and IdrA that he doesn't have the impulse to do the same? Not saying it's right, but it's not so cataclysmic as people are portraying it to be. I'm defending the concept that you know a minimal level of what happened in that game, and he knows it way better than you do. | ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
On March 21 2009 14:41 IdrA wrote: whats to explain? i get pissed and say dumb shit when i lose. strelok was the bigger man and brushed it off and is punishing me by refusing to play me on iccup while you all are being a bunch of little drama queens. learn from him. Damn, now I sympatize with you. We all know a few bad losers. Bad losers are like junkies, they've lost control long ago. It's not their fault, they can't help attacking you with their keyboard after you dominate them in a game of DotA. I still fucking hate bad losers though, grow the fuck up. I hate junkies too. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
On March 21 2009 22:55 shafiru wrote: Also, I love how some random TL scrubs are criticizing IdrA on his skill when he could roll them with their offraces. Criticize the BM, and unless you don't suck ass compared to him, don't criticize the gameplay. I agree how people say he's terrible when he could beat them 200/200 times in a real game. Mostly those idiots that say he's bad dont realize that he is a progamer and they suck dick compared to him and never will achieve anything of the sort. Sure he's BM who gives a fuck? He says whats on his mind. Sure it hink the same shit he says but i dont say it. This isnt a topic to criticize a game its an insecure piece of shit (OP) trying to start a flamewar over Idra BMing strelok. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
that's simply wrong. | ||
|
isbunk
Sweden1017 Posts
On March 21 2009 23:04 I3oxerfan wrote: You are an idiot. We can ciriticize the gameplay of better players. It has nothing to do, if we are better or not. A commentator for soccer can criticize the play of a team, even if he he can not play soccer himself very well. A theorizer for chess can ciriticize a game of chess of the best chess player, even if he would never win against him. Agree. Also it's sad to see the world police look the other way when it's one of their own whos acting like the complete douche. Fuck man IdrA, you're supposed to be the one we look up to. You're the one in Korea doing what so many of us never could. Ur supposed to be our great white hope in Korea. Instead u whine, cry and flame every time u lose. Grow the fuck son and act pro-like, because that's what ur supposed to be, a fucking professional. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
People can criticize the builds and strategies of legitimate pros who CAN WIN GAMES but how dare we bring reproach on the misunderstood genius Idra, who's play is so fucking beyond anything anyone has ever seen that it loses vs inferior players, because we are all too dumb, too simple to even begin to realize the perfection that is his play. | ||
|
I3oxerfan
215 Posts
On March 21 2009 23:16 fanatacist wrote: So you pretend to know every strategic possibility, counter, maneuver, and etc. just from watching reps and playing at whatever lower level you play? Please, don't come back to this thread because you will be flamed to oblivion for your ignorance. You can't know the metagame IdrA was playing/seeing and the situational decisions IdrA had to make. Just like someone else, maybe IdrA, said before, the foreigner understanding of SC is so low compared to pro gamers. Similarly, your understanding of the game is so poor compared to IdrA's. Of course you could comment something like "mismicro here" or something, but knowing the what and why of the builds that either player took isn't your cup of tea. None of us commenting here are pro-level trained players like IdrA is. Hence, none of us can comment on the strategic nuances of the game beyond a guess or a shot in the dark, relative to his understanding. Anything you say is a GUESS, what IdrA admits about the game is more or less FACT. End of story. I'm not going to defend his BM beyond saying that 95% of us do it at one point or another. You think that just because it's a match between Strelok and IdrA that he doesn't have the impulse to do the same? Not saying it's right, but it's not so cataclysmic as people are portraying it to be. I'm defending the concept that you know a minimal level of what happened in that game, and he knows it way better than you do. Than a theorizer for chess is not allowed to criticize a better player? He has the opportunity to watch the game again and again and he is able to see things, which the player didn't see during the game. A commentator for soccer is not allowed to criticize the play of a team? You have no idea. What it means criticizing the gampeplay of somebody. If you watch the replay (or the VoD) you have a better idea of what is going on the battlefield, you are able to see things, which the player does not see. You have not to be the better player to criticize another players gameplay. You have only to have a good knowledge of the game. | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On March 21 2009 23:35 I3oxerfan wrote: Than a theorizer for chess is not allowed to criticize a better player? He has the opportunity to watch the game again and again and he is able to see things, which the player didn't see during the game. A commentator for soccer is not allowed to criticize the play of a team? You have no idea. What it means criticizing the gampeplay of somebody. If you watch the replay (or the VoD) you have a better idea of what is going on the battlefield, you are able to see things, which the player does not see. You have not to be the better player to criticize another players gameplay. You have only to have a good knowledge of the game. So, you can criticize his play because you know things that he cannot possibly know during the game? My point exactly. To extrapolate this concept, let's say a pro goes 13 nex on Andromeda which is pretty standard and scouts the wrong way. Zerg goes 4 pool and randomly guesses which way to attack. Protoss loses. You would be saying that you can criticize his play as being "too risky" because YOU knew what was going to happen. Sorry, but that critique is retarded and ignorant of the context and situation. That is basically what you're doing now. Chess theorizing is different, since it is a strategy game with everything out in the open in front of you. There are absolute rights and wrongs because all the information you need is in front of you. A theorizer can say "this would be better..." etc. and it would be fact. You could say that about a SC game, and be a total dumbass because everything is NOT in the open and the player did NOT know the situation at hand to make that "perfect" decision. Hence metagame. Hence progamer's understanding of metagame being superior to ours. Hence, you are a scrub and IdrA is not, and you have no place to criticize the strategic aspects of the game beyond what IdrA claims to be his mistakes. | ||
|
Kerotan
England2111 Posts
Idra just reminds me of the guy you knew when you where about ten, who always wanted to fight with you, and then whines when you kick him in the balls (you here being Strelok), complaining that its against the rules. Gawd, I wish Idra well and all in Korea, but I wish he was a little more consistent. (again just to be clear, I'm not criticising Idra's play compared to my own, because that would be pointless, since I'm omgterriblewtfbad, but to others around his skill level) | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
On March 21 2009 23:28 niteReloaded wrote: Fanaticist and arb, so what, you are suggesting that if a person is inferior in something, they are not allowed to criticize and point out the flaws of a better player? that's simply wrong. no,Sure they can point what whats wrong with someone i dont even really care. What i do care about however is the OP posting this FOR THE PURPOSE of starting a fucking flame fest which he knew would fucking happen before he hit post. Thats so stupid, people dont like Idra big fucking deal all of these scrubs saying he sucks dick when they will never be ab le to do anything near what he is doing is fucking stupid. | ||
|
isbunk
Sweden1017 Posts
On March 21 2009 23:59 arb wrote: no,Sure they can point what whats wrong with someone i dont even really care. What i do care about however is the OP posting this FOR THE PURPOSE of starting a fucking flame fest which he knew would fucking happen before he hit post. Thats so stupid, people dont like Idra big fucking deal all of these scrubs saying he sucks dick when they will never be ab le to do anything near what he is doing is fucking stupid. It's not stupid at all. He is supposed to be that good, according to himself. Not only does he not live up to his own hype. He acts like he's fucking five when he loses. Win or lose he should carry himself like the professional he is supposed to be. People critisizing IdrA, when they cant _do_ it better, doesn't make them less knowledgeable about the fact that they _know_ what should have been done. Im not saying that everyone here knows better then IdrA, nor that he sucks. I'm just saying that people can critisize, even though they can't do it better themselves. | ||
|
I3oxerfan
215 Posts
On March 21 2009 23:49 fanatacist wrote: So, you can criticize his play because you know things that he cannot possibly know during the game? My point exactly. To extrapolate this concept, let's say a pro goes 13 nex on Andromeda which is pretty standard and scouts the wrong way. Zerg goes 4 pool and randomly guesses which way to attack. Protoss loses. You would be saying that you can criticize his play as being "too risky" because YOU knew what was going to happen. Sorry, but that critique is retarded and ignorant of the context and situation. That is basically what you're doing now. Chess theorizing is different, since it is a strategy game with everything out in the open in front of you. There are absolute rights and wrongs because all the information you need is in front of you. A theorizer can say "this would be better..." etc. and it would be fact. You could say that about a SC game, and be a total dumbass because everything is NOT in the open and the player did NOT know the situation at hand to make that "perfect" decision. Hence metagame. Hence progamer's understanding of metagame being superior to ours. Hence, you are a scrub and IdrA is not, and you have no place to criticize the strategic aspects of the game beyond what IdrA claims to be his mistakes. Ok. Not chess. Than we take another example. The war. There are tons of books aobut historical battles, written by great generals, in which they analyse historical battles. The generals in the battles did not exactly know, what their enemy was doing (like in SC; you do not knwo what your enemy is doing). But you can criticize their strategy after the battle is over, by reading the notes of the general Staff, looking at the maps of the general staff. Yeah the generals in the battle may not have known many many things, which the enemy was doing. But you can criticize them, because they did not send scouts or did not react to the informations of their scouts. You can analyse their mistakes (and this is a fact!!!). You are allowed to do this, even if you the general you criticize is a field marshal and you are only a normal general. In SC it is the same. You can criticize the players after the game by watching the VoD or the replay. Even if you are not better. | ||
|
I3oxerfan
215 Posts
On March 22 2009 00:08 isbunk wrote: It's not stupid at all. He is supposed to be that good, according to himself. Not only does he not live up to his own hype. He acts like he's fucking five when he loses. Win or lose he should carry himself like the professional he is supposed to be. People critisizing IdrA, when they cant _do_ it better, doesn't make them less knowledgeable about the fact that they _know_ what should have been done. Im not saying that everyone here knows better then IdrA, nor that he sucks. I'm just saying that people can critisize, even though they can't do it better themselves. AGREE. | ||
|
Kerotan
England2111 Posts
On March 21 2009 23:54 fanatacist wrote: Kicking in the balls is low as hell, meant for survival situations only. Fail analogy. Get off the computer and do some laps and get stronger then beat the bully. Or simply avoid them. So many better solutions. My point is right, that yes Strelok went for the chessy opening (aka the cheap ball shot), but cheap ball shots are all part of strategy, look at flash's last game in WL, fantasy cheesed him and won the game, I'm not going debate in either pair if they where both equally matched, maybe Idra would have beaten Strelok in a straight up TvT, and maybe Strelok knew that he couldn't beat Idra straight up as well, so rather play to Idra's strengths he played the best chance he thought he had. Its fairly much agreed that a maxed out terran army will beat a maxed toss right, so protoss isn't just going to A move his goons into sieged tanks and say, "oh well I lost", no he isn't, he is going to use stasis and recall to try give himself the edge. Its the same for all cheesy play, the cheese is just an attempt to gain the upper hand with a variable risk, depending on what your doing, and its not like cheese is the insta-win key either, there are many top Koreans that are known for being uncheesable. I partially agree with the rather common belief that Cheesy games aren't fun to watch, but for the players, its all about winning, and if a player thinks that he can gain the uphand/win the game by doing something cheesy, then so be it. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
| ||
