EPTLOL 17k viewers, slow-mode is obsolete.
The IdrA Fan Club - Page 481
| Forum Index > Fan Clubs |
Personal attacks in this thread will draw a temp ban. | ||
|
fahid
Portugal46 Posts
LOL 17k viewers, slow-mode is obsolete. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On May 06 2011 00:04 FinBenton wrote: I quess if enemy wouldnt all in, Idra would just live in peace with enemy units and never attack  Seeing that many 1basing terrans at the top of the ladder depresses me. I like to pretend that maybe they're only 1basing because they know they can't beat IdrA otherwise, but I just know it isn't true. | ||
|
ratMortar
Canada282 Posts
On May 06 2011 02:21 DoubleReed wrote: Seeing that many 1basing terrans at the top of the ladder depresses me. I like to pretend that maybe they're only 1basing because they know they can't beat IdrA otherwise, but I just know it isn't true. I would say half and half. Most people don't want to play a macro game vs IdrA because it's pretty much a loss to try and keep up with his mechanics. You'll even see a pros who tend to play macro games try and all-in vs him; not always but you see it often. Think of it realistically, if you were matched up with IdrA (and you wanted to win) wouldn't you all-in? | ||
|
Mailing
United States3087 Posts
On May 06 2011 02:34 ratMortar wrote: I would say half and half. Most people don't want to play a macro game vs IdrA because it's pretty much a loss to try and keep up with his mechanics. You'll even see a pros who tend to play macro games try and all-in vs him; not always but you see it often. Think of it realistically, if you were matched up with IdrA (and you wanted to win) wouldn't you all-in? No, I would want to make an interesting game. Macroing and losing is better than all-ining and losing, looking like a fool to 17,000 people. Even if you win, you did it with a coin toss and they still laugh. | ||
|
Pokemon4life
Canada36 Posts
| ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 05 2011 22:49 turdburgler wrote: how is the way zerg worked in broodwar relevent to sc2, in any way beyond sharing the name zerg? it's relevant because zerg won games without making guesses in brood war. most people want that to happen in SC2 as well. | ||
|
VforVinDiesel
United States41 Posts
| ||
|
Shai
Canada806 Posts
| ||
|
price
United States297 Posts
On May 06 2011 02:40 Mailing wrote: No, I would want to make an interesting game. Macroing and losing is better than all-ining and losing, looking like a fool to 17,000 people. Even if you win, you did it with a coin toss and they still laugh. i think they just want to stay near the top of the ladder. and those are likely the strategies that got them there. i don't think they want to bother practicing late game if that means losing ladder points ... their chances are better using an all in (creative or not) | ||
|
KonohaFlash
Canada1590 Posts
| ||
|
Toxigen
United States390 Posts
ever play broodwar? you could make sunkens in time if you started them the second they moved out. it didnt make the game imba. dumb fix suggested but just sayin it's relevant because zerg won games without making guesses in brood war. most people want that to happen in SC2 as well. Also, Zerg mechanics in BW are the closest thing in RTS to Zerg mechanics in SC2. Zerg is forced to play reactionary, but the skill at which the player performs the reaction determines how good of player he is. It really pains me to see people saying things like this: so baring close positions you can have 0 defence before a push, but have any spinecrawlers done when they move. and you can always scout everything, even early game. how would zerg lose Note the emphasis -- it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the game and Zerg's mechanics. It suggests that all that's required to win for Zerg is to defeat this single push (and the only real requisite to defeating the push is building spines in time). That's a really narrow understanding of the game and it completely misses IdrA's points on the SotG. For all those who criticize IdrA for "lacking strategy" despite his mechanics, they fail to realize that mechanics ARE strategy in this game. Even in your limited example above, the Zerg isn't necessarily ahead -- he's just not dead. Let's say you're doing a 2-rax into expansion. He saw you leave your base. He built 3 spines. You get to his base, see the spines, and... retreat. Now Zerg has 3 useless spines at his front. He can't even pressure your early expo because spines are STATIC DEFENSE. Let that sink in. You reduced his economy by 3 drones and 300 minerals without taking any damage yourself. If that were a hellion run-by, you'd have called it successful. You made him waste money on spines (and probably zerglings) with no benefit to himself (i.e., he didn't army trade with you, which is what he wanted, so he could drone in safety). After that encounter (or rather, non-encounter), the Zerg doesn't come out ahead. He's just not dead. He's also not so far behind that he's dead, however -- if he didn't have spines yet and had to stall the 2-rax with slowlings, then he'd probably be dead already without realizing it. His economy would never recover against a T fast expo unless Terran made a blunder. Of course, we don't want BW in SC2. However, denying that BW was ridiculously closely balanced is like denying the sky is blue. We're not talking about making spines just like sunken colonies. We are, however, talking about how Zerg needs to have reliable, reactive defense. Maps in SC2 are smaller, units do more damage, armies accumulate faster (in terms of in-game time) due to robust macro abilities like MULEs and injecting larvae. It's ridiculous to expect a Zerg to have to scout their opponents perfectly every game in a game of imperfect information. But, that's what you're basically expecting of a Zerg to be able to simply hold your push and let the game continue. Let's go ahead and play that game right now: If the scout is too early, he sees nothing -- Zerg dies. If the scout is too late, the spines don't finish in time -- Zerg dies. Let's assume that Zerg scouted perfectly. But in that example, if he overproduces on spines or zerglings, sure -- he survives that push. However, he's now playing catch-up economically. Even though he scouted perfectly, he's behind. Let's assume that Zerg not only scouted perfectly, he only made the very bare minimum to survive and stop the push. Zerg is now on even footing with his opponent. The best case scenario here, for Zerg, is to be even with you in the early game. There isn't enough room for error here -- for Zerg to get to the mid-game with a fighting chance, it's basically assuming he made ZERO mistakes early game. It's unacceptable that Zergs are forced to lose 200 minerals and 2 larvae in the early game for a chance of seeing absolutely nothing (it's 200 because you need to replace the overlord -- you're losing 8 supply too, remember). Many Terrans and Protoss make the argument that sacrificing an overlord is the same as the investment in a scan or an observer. The comparison is unfair. Terran and Protoss openings are far safer than Zerg openings due to forcefields and wall-offs. Furthermore, these openings are: 1. Able to scout aggressive all-ins that would beat them (and allow the player to react appropriately, like a 3-roach-rush, etc.) 2. These openings are safe against builds which they can't immediately scout (stargate builds versus Terran, etc.). By safe, I mean you don't auto-lose if you fail to scout it before the reveal of the tech. You're behind, sure, but not dead. Furthermore, Terrans and Protoss aren't scanning or building observers at the typical times that Zerg would be losing an overlord (we're talking between 20-30 supply). Their economies are better able to handle the hit. From the Protoss perspective, there IS no economic hit -- you were going to build observers (for detection) and a robotics anyway. From the Terran perspective, it's a comparable cost, but it's an opportunity cost in minerals (which Terrans have in abundance anyway) that won't be realized for several in-game minutes -- Zerg is forced to spend 2 larvae and 200 minerals (already mined) RIGHT NOW. The cost is higher for Zerg. Anyone who seriously makes the argument that Zerg scouting is superior is deluded. The added fact that Zerg scouting is NECESSARY to survive (i.e., as I touched on above) puts Zerg at a disadvantage. Without scouting, Zerg is basically forced to coin-flip. Zerg needs to hope that whatever build he picked is the correct response otherwise it's an auto-loss. I think I've made my point here. For those who'd prefer a quick summary: TL;DR: IdrA's logic was spot-on in SotG. I can see where Day9 is coming from, but at this stage in the game, Zerg is at a clear disadvantage when playing standard. | ||
|
Jinsho
United Kingdom3101 Posts
| ||
|
Denzil
United Kingdom4193 Posts
On May 06 2011 03:43 price wrote: i think they just want to stay near the top of the ladder. and those are likely the strategies that got them there. i don't think they want to bother practicing late game if that means losing ladder points ... their chances are better using an all in (creative or not) Pisses me off as well, if I was matched up against IdrA I'd use it as a free learning experience without paying for coaching. I could compare how good my mechanics are to his (I play Zerg) from the replay how many injects I missed how many extra drones he's squeezing in where what he did better than me period and infer from that what I need to do and hope I face him again to see if I'm better than last time. | ||
|
Whole
United States6046 Posts
| ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
IdrA's stream is giving me a very weird error that I've never seen before: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zupnJ.jpg) Does anyone else of you get this? | ||
|
Pokedude1013
116 Posts
| ||
|
Headshot
United States1656 Posts
| ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
| ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
| ||
| ||
