EPTPower Rank 04/10/2009 - Page 10
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
Rostam
United States2552 Posts
| ||
|
Guandal
Costa Rica93 Posts
' ' v | ||
|
Lebesgue
4542 Posts
| ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
how do you call an unorthodox, mapsepcific, agressive build which relies on surprising the opponent and is aiming to abuse a weakness of the FE build? I call them cheese builds, any better words wor it that you know? | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
| ||
|
Orbifold
United States1922 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + 's spirits + Show Spoiler + minutes of awful awful TvT | ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
Nor do I agree with Stork being so low. Stork is serious right now, few more games and everyone should see... | ||
|
brjdrb
United States577 Posts
On April 16 2009 17:50 Orbifold wrote: I think Canata has to be considered an early favorite for #1 next month. He has destroyed everyone + Show Spoiler + 's spirits + Show Spoiler + minutes of awful awful TvT haha. the LR thread was great to read though. i can't wait to see the games from last night | ||
|
piratebay
United States399 Posts
On April 16 2009 15:03 Geo.Rion wrote: how do you call an unorthodox, mapsepcific, agressive build which relies on surprising the opponent and is aiming to abuse a weakness of the FE build? I call them cheese builds, any better words wor it that you know? i call it playing to your strengths. it isnt like he went 5 pool liek luxury did against bisu | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On April 16 2009 15:03 Geo.Rion wrote: how do you call an unorthodox, mapsepcific, agressive build which relies on surprising the opponent and is aiming to abuse a weakness of the FE build? I call them cheese builds, any better words wor it that you know? I think in general, the usual denomination of cheese is a lot more risky and puts the cheeser way behind when scouted. Getting burrow and a few zerglings isn't really cheese, but its' also is not the epitome of awesome PR deserving play. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:10 piratebay wrote: i call it playing to your strengths. it isnt like he went 5 pool liek luxury did against bisu cheese migth be called playing to your strengths, troughout the history many players were known as dangerous cheesers. But i wonder what you call cheese than, beside 5pooling. On April 17 2009 14:03 SerpentFlame wrote: I think in general, the usual denomination of cheese is a lot more risky and puts the cheeser way behind when scouted. Getting burrow and a few zerglings isn't really cheese, but its' also is not the epitome of awesome PR deserving play. I dont think you realize that spending 200/200 on lingspeed and burrow + delaying your natural hatch + producing lings instead of drones hurts your economy immensly. And it was risky, the burrow trick isnt a guaranteed success, if 2-3 more lings would have remained outside Bisu could have won. I remember Hoejja saying sg like he got lucky with Bisu pulling the probes because somehow the lings got trough more easely if they targeted the probes, instead of the move spam. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
On April 17 2009 16:02 stroggos wrote: Who cares if he has a more agressive mid-game play, cheeses or not. basing this off game results and by results luxury should be 3rd, 4th or 5th on powerank, not 2nd. Also there is no cheese in sc, only people making excuses because they made risks or wern't good enough at scouting. Yes, everyone should scout on 8 in every MU then to avoid 5 rax, pools, etc. That's the stupidest I've heard, "there is no cheese in sc". Isn't the definition of cheese something that doesn't work nearly as well if it's scouted or something like that? Ex. in PvP, a dragoon and zealot are blocking the ramp, they rush DTs, how do you scout it? | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On April 17 2009 16:02 stroggos wrote: Who cares if he has a more agressive mid-game play, cheeses or not. basing this off game results and by results luxury should be 3rd, 4th or 5th on powerank, not 2nd. Also there is no cheese in sc, only people making excuses because they made risks or wern't good enough at scouting. thank you that you came and enlightened us that cheese does not exist, we only pretending that is. wtf | ||
|
latent
United States428 Posts
Compare this to a sport without significant positive feedback, like basketball for example. An analogy to starcraft would be that if team A's score dropped to say 10 points below the other team's (team B) score, then team A would be required to pull a player off the court and play 4 vs. 5. This would naturally put them at an even further disadvantage. Of course this doesn't happen in basketball. If a team is down by 10, or even 50 points, they have the same chance to score as they did when they started the game. My point here is, in 2 out of 3 games Bisu found himself at a disadvantage early on (failed reaver Game 1, failed 2 shuttle harrass Game 3), and as time went on it became harder and harder for him to overcome that disadvantage because of the nature of the game. That's not necessarily a sign of inferior skill. It simply means Fantasy didn't make a large enough mistake for Bisu to capitalize on it and give himself an opportunity to get himself back into the game. That's why you need to take every series with a grain of salt. It's why Fantasy *shouldn't* be ranked over Bisu, since he historically has performed poorly in the pro leagues (below .500 average), even in the normal Pro League where matches and maps are decided long in advance, giving players plenty of time to practice. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
So why the hell does it matter if a top pro-gamer cheeses or goes all-in all the time. It's just as hard and risky to cheese/all-in at the top than to do standard play. Unless your cheese is like a 4 pool vs 14CC or something that's rediculously risky. | ||
|
MCMcEmcee
United States1609 Posts
On April 17 2009 17:03 latent wrote: Ok ok, I think with regards to Fantasy's series against Bisu a little logical contemplation is in order. I was as shocked and disappointed as any Bisu fan when Bisu lost 3-0, but any Starcraft BoX series has to be taken with a grain of salt. The reason for this is the nature of *positive feedback* in Starcraft. It is this trait which makes Starcraft different from pretty much all national and international sports out there. What I mean by positive feedback is that when a player gains an advantage during a match, that player will be able to reinforce that advantage and over time it will grow. For example, if a player manages to harrass a player's economy by kililng a probe or 2, they will instantly have a small advantage in economy. But each of their extra probe or 2 will bring in a few extra minerals per mining trip, which will allow them to build probes and units faster than their opponent, which will lead to them being able to gain an even larger economic lead over their opponent. This is the problematic nature of Starcraft. Every little advantage counts, because it reinforces itself and builds up (in some cases exponentially, in fact) over time. Compare this to a sport without significant positive feedback, like basketball for example. An analogy to starcraft would be that if team A's score dropped to say 10 points below the other team's (team B) score, then team A would be required to pull a player off the court and play 4 vs. 5. This would naturally put them at an even further disadvantage. Of course this doesn't happen in basketball. If a team is down by 10, or even 50 points, they have the same chance to score as they did when they started the game. My point here is, in 2 out of 3 games Bisu found himself at a disadvantage early on (failed reaver Game 1, failed 2 shuttle harrass Game 3), and as time went on it became harder and harder for him to overcome that disadvantage because of the nature of the game. That's not necessarily a sign of inferior skill. It simply means Fantasy didn't make a large enough mistake for Bisu to capitalize on it and give himself an opportunity to get himself back into the game. That's why you need to take every series with a grain of salt. It's why Fantasy *shouldn't* be ranked over Bisu, since he historically has performed poorly in the pro leagues (below .500 average), even in the normal Pro League where matches and maps are decided long in advance, giving players plenty of time to practice. ah, so now it's STARCRAFT's fault that Bisu put himself at a disadvantage and lost, not Fantasy's play or his own bad decisions. Thank you for enlightening us all. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On April 18 2009 00:51 GGQ wrote: Protoss is just too weak for Bisu to ever be a Bonjwa, sad to say. He'll have to be satisfied with a couple titles every year or so. Poor guy. ...Mantoss is out there sharpening his machete So you're saying that.. Nal_Ra, Kingdom, Reach, Pusan, Stork, Garimto, and countless others played a "weak" race? Starcraft is valued because of its impeccable balance no other RTS in the world has this fine balance of kickass No one race has an advantage over the other | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On April 17 2009 17:03 latent wrote: My point here is, in 2 out of 3 games Bisu found himself at a disadvantage early on (failed reaver Game 1, failed 2 shuttle harrass Game 3), and as time went on it became harder and harder for him to overcome that disadvantage because of the nature of the game. That's not necessarily a sign of inferior skill. It simply means Fantasy didn't make a large enough mistake for Bisu to capitalize on it and give himself an opportunity to get himself back into the game. Basically the argument is that you should weigh all losses less, as long as one player didn't tremendously fuck up. In which case, the argument is not unique to Bisu; you can apply it to any player including Fantasy. Fantasy's loss to Jaedong didn't show that he was worse, it showed that Jaedong capitalized on a failed proxy factory, a thwarted vulture harass on Medusa, and a short timing window with mech! | ||
| ||
