|
Braavos36400 Posts
On February 25 2007 05:59 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2007 05:55 MYM.Testie wrote:
Savior is bad at nothing. There is no aspect of this game he sucks at. I agree. My point all along in this thread is that Savior winning is better for SC than Nada winning because Savior is better at strategy rather than relying so much on mechanics.
"saviors strategy is better than his mechanics"
is very different from
"savior has average micro and multitask"
"savior wastes units with micro errors quite often"
"savior has uncoordinated and ineffective flanks"
|
On February 25 2007 05:58 MYM.Testie wrote:
People think Nada isn't that good at strategy because of his interview on the matter.
If you've seen his games you'd know he's an excellent strategist. And he's shown that time and time again.
I've seen Nada's games since before he won an OSL, and while his strategy was good enough (and innovative, iirc) when he first came onto the scene, I feel it's fallen far behind. He does so many mindless dumb things - a small-scale example from the recent series was casting irradiate on some Ultras right after the marines next to them had just been plagued. At any rate for most of his career he's been more impressive for his macro and micro than anything else.
|
imo, a person/team's dominance in a sport is always a good thing. It would add enthusiasm to other players to strive more and try to defeat him/them. It would also add/renew the interest in an old sport /game.
Just look at SKT1's dominance, it just made MBC's win sweeter and more fulfilling!
Go saviOr! 
|
On February 25 2007 06:00 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2007 05:59 gravity wrote:On February 25 2007 05:55 MYM.Testie wrote:
Savior is bad at nothing. There is no aspect of this game he sucks at. I agree. My point all along in this thread is that Savior winning is better for SC than Nada winning because Savior is better at strategy rather than relying so much on mechanics. "saviors strategy is better than his mechanics" is very different from "savior has average micro and multitask" "savior wastes units with micro errors quite often" "savior has uncoordinated and ineffective flanks"
If you actually pay attention to his games, all those things are true, except probably multitask which I just kind of threw in there. The reason I'm arguing this is because so many times watching Savior's games I've been frustrated/concerned at him unnecessarily losing shit to bad micro, only for him to win anyway. That doesn't happen nearly as much with July.
|
Braavos36400 Posts
so because perhaps ONE other zerg loses less units to bad micro Savior has "average" micro? how does that make sense
if he has average micro then there should be like 10+ zergs with better micro than him, please name them
|
On February 25 2007 06:05 Hot_Bid wrote:
so because perhaps ONE other zerg loses less units to bad micro Savior has "average" micro? how does that make sense
if he has average micro then there should be like 10+ zergs with better micro than him, please name them
Well, I was comparing him to all players, not just other Zergs. After all, the whole point of my comment in the first place is that he isn't as much of a micro/macro whore as Nada. Maybe I'm just holding him to overly high standards because he's so good in other areas, but I've never thought "wow, this Savior guy sure has good micro", with the possible exception of Defiler usage.
edit: Yellow[arnc] might have better micro too, for example, but I haven't watched enough of his games recently to be sure.
edit2: also, if the top micro is good enough/there's a big enough gap, it's possible for Savior to be in the top 5 and still be average.
|
On February 25 2007 05:58 MYM.Testie wrote:
People think Nada isn't that good at strategy because of his interview on the matter.
If you've seen his games you'd know he's an excellent strategist. And he's shown that time and time again.
By the way, didn't you say you don't even watch his games?
|
On February 25 2007 05:45 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2007 05:39 boghat wrote:
Just the fact that he said "Not sure about multitask without seeing a FPVod" makes whatever he says next have almost no credibility. Obviously you are half asleep when watching VODs or you just aren't bright enough to understand that when the video is centered on some beautiful attack savior is doing and then switches to savior's base where another army is being gathered savior is doing those at the same time. Savior has lings and mutas and lurkers and other shit running around all parts of the map and he barely even loses more than one ling before retreating them when attacked by a superior force, which is an easy example of incredible multitasking if you have ever actually played the game.
"Barely even loses more than one ling"? I guess you didn't watch Midas vs. Savior on Hitchhiker (first one) where Savior lost the game by constantly throwing away groups of units to little or no effect, or all the other times when he sloppily loses units when otherwise playing well. Of course he can multitask, but calling him the best multitasker ever (like the other guy did) is probably stretching it - every pro can multitask better than you or me but not every one is one of the absolute best.
Well you could say those were just bad decisions to attack rather than bad multi-tasking. Though I do remember that game he seemed to lose a fair amount of units because he didn't retreat but saying his multi-tasking is unbelievable or the best doesn't mean it's perfect. Obviously he makes multi-task mistakes sometimes but those sometimes are few and far between, especially lately.
|
You don't need to watch his games to know these things gravity. No one can get that far on great mechanics alone.
I have seen a few nada replays. But no, I do not watch any VODS I just read the live reports.
Plus, that barracks move he did at blizzcon was a very pimp play.
|
On February 25 2007 06:06 gravity wrote:
Well, I was comparing him to all players, not just other Zergs.
Well zerg players tend to have more units running around the map than other races and usually when they attack it's with more units. It's natural that it would seem like zerg players "carelessly" lose more units than other races when in fact it must be nearly impossible not to lose some random lings or lurkers here and there with everything that's going on. Terrans and protosses usually have their units grouped together more and their units are stronger so they don't lose them as often in a seemingly needless fashion.
|
On February 25 2007 06:12 MYM.Testie wrote:
You don't need to watch his games to know these things gravity. No one can get that far on great mechanics alone.
I have seen a few nada replays. But no, I do not watch any VODS I just read the live reports.
Plus, that barracks move he did at blizzcon was a very pimp play.
WTF, and people are calling *me* full of shit? Live reports tell you nothing (seriously, try reading a live rep then watching the VOD, you'll be amazed at how much is left out, glossed over, or poorly explained, which makes sense if you consider the circumstances). If you haven't seen the VODs you know crap about what Savior's micro is like, no matter how good you are or how much you think you know the tournaments that you don't even watch.
|
On February 25 2007 06:15 boghat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2007 06:06 gravity wrote:
Well, I was comparing him to all players, not just other Zergs. Well zerg players tend to have more units running around the map than other races and usually when they attack it's with more units. It's natural that it would seem like zerg players "carelessly" lose more units than other races when in fact it must be nearly impossible not to lose some random lings or lurkers here and there with everything that's going on. Terrans and protosses usually have their units grouped together more and their units are stronger so they don't lose them as often in a seemingly needless fashion.
That's true but other Zerg players show it's possible to be considerably more efficient in battles on average, but Savior shows that you can win without that.
|
Gravity, I know what live reports are. I wasn't saying that's how I got information on the players. I was saying that's what I do since I do not watch vods / streams. If I went by live reports I might be the dumbest player alive because they're very basic and half the time they don't understand the true course in the game. Regardless, fun to read.
Also, playing people in the scene has actually helped gravity. I don't know how many times I need to stress this, but no Starleaguer is -> BAD <- at strategy or any aspect of this game.
As I said, i've seen a few replays. I've seen about 3-5 savior Replays, and probably 5-10 Nada replays plus watching his games from Blizzcon. I've seen games where Nada plays stupidly, I can agree but that is more out of stubborn-ness vs zergs to make his non-tank style work.
I can tell a lot about a persons game from watching it. They are both complete gamers who have pretty much every aspect of their game locked down tight.
You sir, are not giving enough respect.
|
On February 25 2007 06:22 MYM.Testie wrote:
Gravity, I know what live reports are. I wasn't saying that's how I got information on the players. I was saying that's what I do since I do not watch vods / streams.
Also, playing people in the scene has actually helped gravity. I don't know how many times I need to stress this, but no Starleaguer is -> BAD <- at strategy or any aspect of this game.
I never said Savior was -> BAD <- at anything. Besides, bad is a relative term. There's bad for amateurs, bad for pros, and bad for OSL winners. Savior's micro is not that special for an OSL winner (although it's not ~~BAD~~), which is why him winning over Nada in this OSL is a good sign for the depth of Starcraft.
And the fact stands that if you don't watch VODs/reps (or play the specific player personally, which I doubt you've done in Savior's case), you don't really know what I'm talking about in regards to recent games.
As I said, i've seen a few replays. I've seen about 3-5 savior Replays, and probably 5-10 Nada replays plus watching his games from Blizzcon. I've seen games where Nada plays stupidly, I can agree but that is more out of stubborn-ness vs zergs to make his non-tank style work.
The problem with Nada is that he's good at anything that requires instinct but he doesn't really think at all. Sure, you can't have deep thought in the middle of an SC game, but a split-second of intelligent insight can make up for a lot. He has good instinct because he's been around for so long, but he has a tendency to persist with doing things mindlessly. His use of irradiate on ultras in dumb situations in the final is a recent example - he kept doing it just because it's the standard thing to do when you don't need to save it for Defilers, without realizing that he was just hurting himself.
I can tell a lot about a persons game from watching it. They are both complete gamers who have pretty much every aspect of their game locked down tight.
You sir, are not giving enough respect.
Obviously neither player has "every aspect of their game locked down tight" or they wouldn't lose any games (except for luck). All players have weaknesses relative to the level of competition that they play at.
|
Sorry to butt in... but I felt the need to just give my two cents...
I really disagree with the "savior not being efficient in battles" statement. True, he sacrifices lings, lurkers, mutas here and there but not being efficient?--NO He sacrifices them because he's just trying to delay/contain his opponent before he's able to execute his strategy and overruns his opponent. It's also true that sometimes his stategies backfire, but saying his not being efficient or someone's more efficient than him is outright false.
|
I don't mind savior, and i don't mind the fact that he dominates right now. I would mind if he wins all OSL and MSL for the next year, it would become boring. But even seeing the semis vs Iris I don't think thats going to happen, he will slip up at some point (I'm going to watch the finals now). Go sAviOr!
|
Gravity, two players can play a perfect game and there will still be a victor. Because you can still play perfect due to the knowledge you have. If they both had map hacks, that might be different.
I'm sure in the pro circuit it's happened way more than 50 times that two players have played a perfect 10 minute game. One player has to lose, after all.
|
Just a random thought:
imagine how the March KeSPA rankings will look like
|
If savior wasn't around, I wouldn't have thought it possible for a zerg to be this dominant.
|
gravity.. i agree with your last post. --> no i don't, you guys managed to write 16 comments while i wrote this.
But how can you seriously say his micro isn't special? Did you see his last game against Iris?
The fact that it comes with amazing strategical depth and that sometimes he doesn't need more than simultanous 'Attack Move' to finish a game doesn't mean his mechanics "are average".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
