|
On March 22 2009 00:13 I3oxerfan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2009 23:49 fanatacist wrote:On March 21 2009 23:35 I3oxerfan wrote:On March 21 2009 23:16 fanatacist wrote:On March 21 2009 23:04 I3oxerfan wrote: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. 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. 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.
Like I said, you can criticize purely mechanical concepts because they are either right or wrong (most of the time). 95% of the time you can't criticize strategy, simply because you do not know enough about the metagame in the situation to do so. Of course there are glaring mistakes, rarely (at the pro-level), where you would be right and the action the pro made is wrong. Anything beyond what IdrA admits is most likely NOT the case. What you describe is one person making a blunder and someone else recognizing it. What is happening is people trash on his whole approach to the game, like saying "strategy x is better than strategy y," and that is just stupid to do with such certainty when dealing with higher level players. End of story.
|
On March 22 2009 00:21 Kerotan wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Oh, I wasn't continuing your analogy at all. I am not defending the concept of cheesy play being gay and amoral. I was just saying that kicking someone in the nuts is gay as hell.
|
wow... never knew  IdrA was like that...
|
On March 22 2009 00:25 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2009 00:13 I3oxerfan wrote:On March 21 2009 23:49 fanatacist wrote:On March 21 2009 23:35 I3oxerfan wrote:On March 21 2009 23:16 fanatacist wrote:On March 21 2009 23:04 I3oxerfan wrote: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. 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. 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. Like I said, you can criticize purely mechanical concepts because they are either right or wrong (most of the time). 95% of the time you can't criticize strategy, simply because you do not know enough about the metagame in the situation to do so. Of course there are glaring mistakes, rarely (at the pro-level), where you would be right and the action the pro made is wrong. Anything beyond what IdrA admits is most likely NOT the case. What you describe is one person making a blunder and someone else recognizing it. What is happening is people trash on his whole approach to the game, like saying "strategy x is better than strategy y," and that is just stupid to do with such certainty when dealing with higher level players. End of story.
But it is totally wrong, if you say, that you are not allowed to criticize a player about his play.
|
On March 22 2009 00:37 I3oxerfan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2009 00:25 fanatacist wrote:On March 22 2009 00:13 I3oxerfan wrote:On March 21 2009 23:49 fanatacist wrote:On March 21 2009 23:35 I3oxerfan wrote:On March 21 2009 23:16 fanatacist wrote:On March 21 2009 23:04 I3oxerfan wrote: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. 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. 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. Like I said, you can criticize purely mechanical concepts because they are either right or wrong (most of the time). 95% of the time you can't criticize strategy, simply because you do not know enough about the metagame in the situation to do so. Of course there are glaring mistakes, rarely (at the pro-level), where you would be right and the action the pro made is wrong. Anything beyond what IdrA admits is most likely NOT the case. What you describe is one person making a blunder and someone else recognizing it. What is happening is people trash on his whole approach to the game, like saying "strategy x is better than strategy y," and that is just stupid to do with such certainty when dealing with higher level players. End of story. But it is totally wrong, if you say, that you are not allowed to criticize a player about his play.
Like I said, you can criticize purely mechanical concepts because they are either right or wrong (most of the time). 95% of the time you can't criticize strategy, simply because you do not know enough about the metagame in the situation to do so. Of course there are glaring mistakes, rarely (at the pro-level), where you would be right and the action the pro made is wrong. Anything beyond what IdrA admits is most likely NOT the case. What you describe is one person making a blunder and someone else recognizing it. What is happening is people trash on his whole approach to the game, like saying "strategy x is better than strategy y," and that is just stupid to do with such certainty when dealing with higher level players. End of story.
|
On March 22 2009 00:44 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2009 00:37 I3oxerfan wrote:On March 22 2009 00:25 fanatacist wrote:On March 22 2009 00:13 I3oxerfan wrote:On March 21 2009 23:49 fanatacist wrote:On March 21 2009 23:35 I3oxerfan wrote:On March 21 2009 23:16 fanatacist wrote:On March 21 2009 23:04 I3oxerfan wrote: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. 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. 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. Like I said, you can criticize purely mechanical concepts because they are either right or wrong (most of the time). 95% of the time you can't criticize strategy, simply because you do not know enough about the metagame in the situation to do so. Of course there are glaring mistakes, rarely (at the pro-level), where you would be right and the action the pro made is wrong. Anything beyond what IdrA admits is most likely NOT the case. What you describe is one person making a blunder and someone else recognizing it. What is happening is people trash on his whole approach to the game, like saying "strategy x is better than strategy y," and that is just stupid to do with such certainty when dealing with higher level players. End of story. But it is totally wrong, if you say, that you are not allowed to criticize a player about his play. Show nested quote +Like I said, you can criticize purely mechanical concepts because they are either right or wrong (most of the time). 95% of the time you can't criticize strategy, simply because you do not know enough about the metagame in the situation to do so. Of course there are glaring mistakes, rarely (at the pro-level), where you would be right and the action the pro made is wrong. Anything beyond what IdrA admits is most likely NOT the case. What you describe is one person making a blunder and someone else recognizing it. What is happening is people trash on his whole approach to the game, like saying "strategy x is better than strategy y," and that is just stupid to do with such certainty when dealing with higher level players. End of story.
Let's go back to topic.
|
On March 21 2009 22:02 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2009 21:26 IdrA wrote:On March 21 2009 21:18 niteReloaded wrote:
wow idra is so bad it's astounding.
He, self-proclaimed better player, is the one who should be taking the initiative in the game, push strelok to the limits, ESPECIALLY after strelok was so behind in the begining.
Instead, he lays back, macroes and gives strelok time and room for initiative to make up for the loss in the beginning.
I'm impressed by how bad Idra is, both in attitude and in overall SC skill.
Lesson 1: If somebody is bad, and you don't know how to take advantage of that -- you are the bad one. what are you babbling about i went 2 fac and moved to attack, mismicroed and lost the brunt of the attack to mines, his minefield meant i couldnt use my tank and the defender has an advantage in vulture vs vulture, so the proper decision was to sit on my econ advantage and wear him down in a macro game, especially given that macro is my strength and his weakness. i lost the game because i missed the obvious that he was going wraith, and was at a 1 base and 20something supply disadvantage for the rest of the game, and still brought it back to even. he wasnt mining on his last attack. i deserve shit for flaming him, but seriously dont even try to talk about the game if you're that clueless. I am very bad at TvT, but still I think the only initiative you did was that first attack where that mine hurt you. Then he did something, you defended and responded. Then he does something again, you respond. The rest of the game, even when strelok was still behind, you gave him room to breathe and come up with some weird shit to hurt you. If I had your skills, I would use solid but aggresive builds against all foreigners. If he's the one who reacts, he can't surprise you, because he has to match your attacks with proper defense and reactions. Instead, from what I've seen of you, you tend to let people have the initiative and trust in your ability to outnumber them in the end. Kinda like in poker, you go to showdown too often. You need more aggression IMO, on every street. PUSH THEM AROUND MAN! Also, playing bad players has improved my understanding of poker much more than playing vs good players. If you know something is wrong or inferior, you need to be as clear as possible in your head as to what to do to take advantage of that. I'm trying to help you, so I hope you find at least something useful from what I say, coz I indeed may be talking stuff you already know.
in most cases thats true, however here i was significantly behind and he had light harass openings all blocked off, and he was constantly attacking. this made it a better choice to sit and absorb his attacks and wait for a hole to open up, and it did after he blew units on that center attack, it let me siege his last expo at 3. it worked, just not quite well enough. most of his harass and attacks didnt do much and in the end he wasnt mining, i just lost too many units defending the drop at 6 to hold off his last ditch attack.
had i gone on the offensive he just woulda crushed it with superior unit count, especially given that i couldnt really afford dropships when i could barely afford units as is.
|
On March 21 2009 22:57 KlaCkoN wrote: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
Maybe because, for someone who spend 10 hours a day playing the game, IdrA is just horrible at decision making, doesn't even understand the concept of mind game (when he loses the mind game, he says his opponent did soemthing stupid), and have a mediocre micro. As he always go for extraordinarily safe, standart and defensive builds, and as he is finally a very good player compared to most foreigners (the 10 hours a day have to pay somewhere), everybody assume that his macro is amazing.
What makes me laugh is that IdrA always says afterward that his opponent is bad (or at best mediocre) when he loses. It may be a bit simplistic, but for me, someone who lose to bad players is bad himself.
|
On March 21 2009 10:23 Farm wrote:For the real fun of seeing IdrA's attitude-in-need-of-adjustment, scroll down to near the end (or Ctrl+F "Manner Bear"), although I certainly encourage you to read my report of the game first!  Comments (about the report, although you can comment on IdrA too if you want, I won't ban you from my blog) are most welcome! Hi guys! It's me again, although most of you probably don't remember me, I decided to write a battlereport of CJ_Idra vs 3D.Strelok. Note that this contains spoilers of Broodsport/Liquibition of Strelok vs F91. If you somehow have not seen those and do not want to be spoiled (then my congratulations to you for somehow avoiding it while still reading TL...), then do not read this.
YESS i totally got that congratulation
|
Am I the only one who think this gets too much attention?
Ok so the guy was BM after losing a game... Some people react that way.
I dont see how it can create 11 pages of discussion.
|
IdrA is a progamaaaaaaaarr so we must crush him for every human fault he has
|
Lol Idra... bm much?
I watched it too, and the reason that you had the colors as teal and red was cuz of shift tab tab lol... Strelok was orange and Idra was yellow for me.
|
lol whatever makes you happy;)
but for my part i don't care that much.
|
|
|
thats indeed a human fault
but it's a very very bad one for a pro gamer ..
being humble and see the true reasons why u lose is a key thing to achieve something..
and calling everyone newbie or cheesers whenever u lose is not..
|
On March 22 2009 00:51 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2009 22:02 niteReloaded wrote:On March 21 2009 21:26 IdrA wrote:On March 21 2009 21:18 niteReloaded wrote:
wow idra is so bad it's astounding.
He, self-proclaimed better player, is the one who should be taking the initiative in the game, push strelok to the limits, ESPECIALLY after strelok was so behind in the begining.
Instead, he lays back, macroes and gives strelok time and room for initiative to make up for the loss in the beginning.
I'm impressed by how bad Idra is, both in attitude and in overall SC skill.
Lesson 1: If somebody is bad, and you don't know how to take advantage of that -- you are the bad one. what are you babbling about i went 2 fac and moved to attack, mismicroed and lost the brunt of the attack to mines, his minefield meant i couldnt use my tank and the defender has an advantage in vulture vs vulture, so the proper decision was to sit on my econ advantage and wear him down in a macro game, especially given that macro is my strength and his weakness. i lost the game because i missed the obvious that he was going wraith, and was at a 1 base and 20something supply disadvantage for the rest of the game, and still brought it back to even. he wasnt mining on his last attack. i deserve shit for flaming him, but seriously dont even try to talk about the game if you're that clueless. I am very bad at TvT, but still I think the only initiative you did was that first attack where that mine hurt you. Then he did something, you defended and responded. Then he does something again, you respond. The rest of the game, even when strelok was still behind, you gave him room to breathe and come up with some weird shit to hurt you. If I had your skills, I would use solid but aggresive builds against all foreigners. If he's the one who reacts, he can't surprise you, because he has to match your attacks with proper defense and reactions. Instead, from what I've seen of you, you tend to let people have the initiative and trust in your ability to outnumber them in the end. Kinda like in poker, you go to showdown too often. You need more aggression IMO, on every street. PUSH THEM AROUND MAN! Also, playing bad players has improved my understanding of poker much more than playing vs good players. If you know something is wrong or inferior, you need to be as clear as possible in your head as to what to do to take advantage of that. I'm trying to help you, so I hope you find at least something useful from what I say, coz I indeed may be talking stuff you already know. in most cases thats true, however here i was significantly behind and he had light harass openings all blocked off, and he was constantly attacking. this made it a better choice to sit and absorb his attacks and wait for a hole to open up.
to sit and absorg his attacks, wait for a hole to open up and lose. (!?)
|
Idra should leak a replay where all he does is say really nice things about his opponent and see what kind of thread it spawns
|
On March 21 2009 14:41 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2009 11:38 brad3104 wrote:
Lol has Idra explained himself? or is he just hiding somewhere....I hope he fails in everything...constantly being BM is just annoying. Type GG and gtfo like a man. 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.
Spot on analysis here.
We all know already that Idra is bm after losing, so why start the drama? It was a fun replay with text, but that´s about it.
My guess is a lot of good foreigners could train a year in korea and yet would not be better than Idra. Even while playing in a korean proteam Idra does not (yet) have the same quality of training as his fellow progamers, who can communicate much more thouroghly with each other . He lost a close game here in his worst matchup and his SCL-record looks good.
|
On March 22 2009 01:11 I3oxerfan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2009 00:51 IdrA wrote:On March 21 2009 22:02 niteReloaded wrote:On March 21 2009 21:26 IdrA wrote:On March 21 2009 21:18 niteReloaded wrote:
wow idra is so bad it's astounding.
He, self-proclaimed better player, is the one who should be taking the initiative in the game, push strelok to the limits, ESPECIALLY after strelok was so behind in the begining.
Instead, he lays back, macroes and gives strelok time and room for initiative to make up for the loss in the beginning.
I'm impressed by how bad Idra is, both in attitude and in overall SC skill.
Lesson 1: If somebody is bad, and you don't know how to take advantage of that -- you are the bad one. what are you babbling about i went 2 fac and moved to attack, mismicroed and lost the brunt of the attack to mines, his minefield meant i couldnt use my tank and the defender has an advantage in vulture vs vulture, so the proper decision was to sit on my econ advantage and wear him down in a macro game, especially given that macro is my strength and his weakness. i lost the game because i missed the obvious that he was going wraith, and was at a 1 base and 20something supply disadvantage for the rest of the game, and still brought it back to even. he wasnt mining on his last attack. i deserve shit for flaming him, but seriously dont even try to talk about the game if you're that clueless. I am very bad at TvT, but still I think the only initiative you did was that first attack where that mine hurt you. Then he did something, you defended and responded. Then he does something again, you respond. The rest of the game, even when strelok was still behind, you gave him room to breathe and come up with some weird shit to hurt you. If I had your skills, I would use solid but aggresive builds against all foreigners. If he's the one who reacts, he can't surprise you, because he has to match your attacks with proper defense and reactions. Instead, from what I've seen of you, you tend to let people have the initiative and trust in your ability to outnumber them in the end. Kinda like in poker, you go to showdown too often. You need more aggression IMO, on every street. PUSH THEM AROUND MAN! Also, playing bad players has improved my understanding of poker much more than playing vs good players. If you know something is wrong or inferior, you need to be as clear as possible in your head as to what to do to take advantage of that. I'm trying to help you, so I hope you find at least something useful from what I say, coz I indeed may be talking stuff you already know. in most cases thats true, however here i was significantly behind and he had light harass openings all blocked off, and he was constantly attacking. this made it a better choice to sit and absorb his attacks and wait for a hole to open up. to sit and absorg his attacks, wait for a hole to open up and lose. (!?)
you're really smart
|
On March 22 2009 01:11 I3oxerfan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2009 00:51 IdrA wrote:On March 21 2009 22:02 niteReloaded wrote:On March 21 2009 21:26 IdrA wrote:On March 21 2009 21:18 niteReloaded wrote:
wow idra is so bad it's astounding.
He, self-proclaimed better player, is the one who should be taking the initiative in the game, push strelok to the limits, ESPECIALLY after strelok was so behind in the begining.
Instead, he lays back, macroes and gives strelok time and room for initiative to make up for the loss in the beginning.
I'm impressed by how bad Idra is, both in attitude and in overall SC skill.
Lesson 1: If somebody is bad, and you don't know how to take advantage of that -- you are the bad one. what are you babbling about i went 2 fac and moved to attack, mismicroed and lost the brunt of the attack to mines, his minefield meant i couldnt use my tank and the defender has an advantage in vulture vs vulture, so the proper decision was to sit on my econ advantage and wear him down in a macro game, especially given that macro is my strength and his weakness. i lost the game because i missed the obvious that he was going wraith, and was at a 1 base and 20something supply disadvantage for the rest of the game, and still brought it back to even. he wasnt mining on his last attack. i deserve shit for flaming him, but seriously dont even try to talk about the game if you're that clueless. I am very bad at TvT, but still I think the only initiative you did was that first attack where that mine hurt you. Then he did something, you defended and responded. Then he does something again, you respond. The rest of the game, even when strelok was still behind, you gave him room to breathe and come up with some weird shit to hurt you. If I had your skills, I would use solid but aggresive builds against all foreigners. If he's the one who reacts, he can't surprise you, because he has to match your attacks with proper defense and reactions. Instead, from what I've seen of you, you tend to let people have the initiative and trust in your ability to outnumber them in the end. Kinda like in poker, you go to showdown too often. You need more aggression IMO, on every street. PUSH THEM AROUND MAN! Also, playing bad players has improved my understanding of poker much more than playing vs good players. If you know something is wrong or inferior, you need to be as clear as possible in your head as to what to do to take advantage of that. I'm trying to help you, so I hope you find at least something useful from what I say, coz I indeed may be talking stuff you already know. in most cases thats true, however here i was significantly behind and he had light harass openings all blocked off, and he was constantly attacking. this made it a better choice to sit and absorb his attacks and wait for a hole to open up. to sit and absorg his attacks, wait for a hole to open up and lose. (!?)
I lie in wait, biding my time. Finally I see my opening, a lull in the action, with my progamer level hand speed, my mouse is released from my sweaty clutches, my middle finger depresses the return key as my hands find the homerow on my keyboard in one fluid motion, I release my assault on my opponent at over 120 wpm, "you skilless newbie faggot" appears on my opponents screen, my bony fingers deftlessly found their keys with the rapidity of a chickens beak pecking at morsels of corn. My opponents reactions are as if he was playing in a vat of molasses, I give him no quarter, no possible chance to come back from my game ending blow. Before his inferior mind can even process what has occurred and he can respond, the victory box appears on his screen, denying him any hopes of retaliation. The day is won. I lean back in my chair, crack my knuckles, and prepare myself for another day of doing laundry for the real pros.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
