|
ejai63
United States2101 Posts
On November 07 2004 11:00 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:
oov impresses me a whole lot more than nada does, nada even admitted in an interview that he never changes his strats according to maps but just keeps up the same old thing. The oov we are seeing now is different from the oov we saw only months ago. It is easy to see that he is slowly turning into a hybrid of the best macro around and the lethal strategic mind of boxer.
definitely agree. its like oov = boxer + nada
|
On November 07 2004 19:13 ejai63 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2004 11:00 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:
oov impresses me a whole lot more than nada does, nada even admitted in an interview that he never changes his strats according to maps but just keeps up the same old thing. The oov we are seeing now is different from the oov we saw only months ago. It is easy to see that he is slowly turning into a hybrid of the best macro around and the lethal strategic mind of boxer. definitely agree. its like oov = boxer + nada
|
On November 07 2004 13:07 yOOysi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2004 11:48 Purind wrote:
Wow, those were amazing games. I don't really like oov, because he repeatedly owns NaDa, but after watching these games, I have much renewed respect for him. Game 1 was fun, his game on bifrost was strong, and that last game was a miracle Not miracle, he was lucky a littlebit. And Reach looks tired...
lucky? No! he won by his talent! why people keep saying oov was lucky dfsdfsdfasdf..-_-;
|
To me it seems that in the 3 games he lost, he had the advantage at start but lost. Is this a confidence thing?
|
oov =/= boxer + nada, oov=nada
oov does not do stuff like boxer do. Oov is just a heavy macro player imo. 
|
On November 07 2004 22:56 likeboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2004 13:07 yOOysi wrote:On November 07 2004 11:48 Purind wrote:
Wow, those were amazing games. I don't really like oov, because he repeatedly owns NaDa, but after watching these games, I have much renewed respect for him. Game 1 was fun, his game on bifrost was strong, and that last game was a miracle Not miracle, he was lucky a littlebit. And Reach looks tired... lucky? No! he won by his talent! why people keep saying oov was lucky dfsdfsdfasdf..-_-;
Hmmm... Ok Answer to my Question:
Why oov won the last game ??
(in my opinion Ans. is: because Reach made a mistake and a bad judgement
This Reach mistake wasn't a miracle or sth.)
But YES oov play very very well...
|
Why did oov lose games 1 and 4?
It was because he made a mistake and an error in judgement. Otherwise it'd be 3-0.
Ok. Have a nice day.
lol
|
I think oov is the current overall best Terran
game 1 was full out mass war, reach's storms and carrier micro was very good and it seems his goliaths had some trouble because of the narrow bridges
|
What the hell are you ladies blabbering about?
How is it LUCK that Reach messed up?
Do you know how HARD it is to play those games? SO MUCH on the line! Each game is intense! Reach just cracked first and oov went for the jugular. There's no luck in one player just not playing his A-game with every move.
Stop living in fantasy land. 
|
Why did oov lose games 1 and 4?
It was because he made a mistake and an error in judgement. Otherwise it'd be 3-0.
I'm not sure if the senior TL.net member respond to you, but I will anyways.
Game 1 oov even said "i've never lost a macro war." There was no mistake in judgement. He just got out macroed. Nothing else to it. Game 4 there was no lack in judgement. Reach just pulled some damn art and that's all. Rek knows first hand how damn sweet Reach's toss is. He's Devil Toss for cryin out loud.
|
On November 08 2004 18:45 worst.player wrote:Show nested quote +Why did oov lose games 1 and 4?
It was because he made a mistake and an error in judgement. Otherwise it'd be 3-0. I'm not sure if the senior TL.net member respond to you, but I will anyways. Game 1 oov even said "i've never lost a macro war." There was no mistake in judgement. He just got out macroed. Nothing else to it. Game 4 there was no lack in judgement. Reach just pulled some damn art and that's all. Rek knows first hand how damn sweet Reach's toss is. He's Devil Toss for cryin out loud.
Kingdom is Devil Toss, Reach is Hero Toss.
|
Game 1 was a macro game, but oov didn't lose to a macro war. He lost to carrier harassment and lost all his income. It then ceased to be a macro war.
ie. Carriers hit CC/SCV, goliaths come to save the day, carriers run away.
In the ground battles, oov had the advantage, but you can't beat carrier mobility.
But that's carriers for you.
Anyhow, by your very same argument, I would propose that Oov won the macro and 'art' wars in games 2,3 and 5.
However if by your 'other' (previous) argument, the argument that Reach lost by mistakes and judgement, then it should also be applied to Oov.
Or does your logic only apply to one of the players and not the other?
|
My bad 7up :O! Good call.
erectus - even oov said himself he lost a macro game. but i guess you know better than he does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
