|
On March 30 2011 02:09 Triscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:28 abominable wrote:some people are so ignorant... you don't know the half of idra's BM towards cruncher. http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133215IdrA: "I just went on to NA server to bash some newbies" JP: "So is Cruncher one of these newbies?" IdrA: "Yep" http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2689991&postcount=152"idra: you're pretty talented" (after game 1) "idra: boy it must suck when skill matters" (after game 2) idra is lucky that cruncher doesn't rename himself "idra went crunch". i don't doubt that idra is a great player... but he hasn't won much so i don't think he has any right to treat more successful players like they're 'bad'. officially, cruncher is better than idra.. idra just has to live with that until he wins something. So IdrA hasn't won anything? Except for MLG Dallas, King of the Beta, and the Hello Goodbye tournament? As well as Ro8 in the GSL, the toughest tournament around? And Cruncher has won... 2 weekly tournaments and a TL Open. Yeah, the TL Opens are good tournaments but I hardly think Cruncher is the more successful player. Come on man.
MLG DC = 6 months ago.
king of the beta = 8 months ago.
hello goodbye = 12 months ago.
dude, i won musical chairs at my birthday party 20 years ago... it doesn't make me the musical chair messiah.
imo as of right now he's probably top 10 foreigner (if you can even call him a foreigner). very solid standard-econ play, even when under extreme pressure. if he was more aggressive, decisive, unpredictable and gambled every now and again he would easily be one of the best players in the world.
he had EXACTLY the same problem in broodwar. he stuck to his own style while the pro's were abusing him with cheese every time, and thus didn't really make a name for himself in the proleague.
|
Partially I think it's because Idra's just a little too good. He's so good that he can usually win easily even when his strategy is severely flawed, simply because he can execute so well that even when he brings a knife to a gun fight, he can usually just win anyway. But he relies a little bit too much on his skill and not nearly enough on his strategy.
Game 1 was a classic example of that happening. He was like a martial artist so good at breaking bricks with his head that he kept trying it even when he was actually smashing his head against reinforced concrete. But so sure was he in his brick smashing ability that he just smashed his own face in. I actually don't think he was dead when he left that game, I think he had an even shot to pull it back out again with some totally gosu badassery, but I can understand his reasoning for wanting to just forget it and move on to the second game immediately.
Game 2 speaks for it's self. Idra changed things up, adapted to the map and snapped Cruncher's neck like a bundle of dry grass with his Nerdly Mandibles of Justice.
Game 3, he got rivered. But it never should have come down to that because Idra should have won game 1 if he hadn't been so intent on trying to break concrete with his face.
|
On March 30 2011 02:39 Unwardil wrote:
Partially I think it's because Idra's just a little too full of himself.
This makes your statement a lot more true.
When was the last time we saw him go on a winning streak? He's STUBBORN.
|
On March 30 2011 02:37 confusedcrib wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 02:33 Albrithe wrote:On March 30 2011 02:24 confusedcrib wrote:On March 30 2011 02:16 heaven- wrote:
I think someone with no credentials should probably not do analysis.... just saying. I am not trying to hate on the OP but like I rather have a blue guy do an analysis than some random clearly biased guy. The blue poster's analysis pretty much agrees with nearly all of my points, not to mention, knowing the way the forum thinks no credentials would be enough, even if I was a semi-pro people would say "you haven't even won a tournament, you are garbage!" Just read the analysis, and come to your own conclusions. And I'm tired of addressing these bias comments just because the first reply is a blue poster saying I am biased and derailing the entire thing, I've addressed that my analysis is more heavily focused on Idra's play (but this does not subtract from the analysis) then on Cruncher and I've addressed why, I think I've been more than fair. There are things to learn from these games and I point them out, or you can ignore them and learn nothing. From my understanding of the blue posts, saying he "pretty much agrees with nearly all of [your] points" simply isn't true, not to mention an extremely loaded sentence ('pretty much', 'nearly', how can you say this without feeling like a salesman????). Read his analysis on page 3, where he actually addresses the games themselves, we agree on almost everything. I wasn't aware that adverbs shouldn't be used on the forum.
Okay, then there is a disconnect between my/your understanding of what you said in the OP and what the blue poster has posted. Yes, you can use adverbs but those are just ones that take away from certainty and objectivity in your statements. By saying 'pretty much', and 'nearly', it leaves it open to interpretation. For example, I don't think that you two 'pretty much' or 'nearly' had the same analysis, but you do think that.
|
On March 30 2011 02:24 superstartran wrote:
Cruncher took a 3rd that is HARD to defend. The 3rd near his base is much easier to defend due to proximity and positioning of said 3rd. The 3rd at the top is easily killed once you get down the ramp. The 3rd near Cruncher's base is a MUCH tougher 3rd to break.
lol, are you saying that a TSL player who beat Idra using superior strategy and preparation (no one is going to argue that Cruncher has better mechanics than Idra) made a strategically poor decision in taking the wrong 3rd base on a map that he spent countless hours studying and practicing on, using a build that centers around getting that 3rd base? Who are you again?
While I don't necessarily disagree with you that Idra could have attempted some sort of earlier aggression, the macro route that he chose instead is still perfectly valid, By the time Idra maxed out on supply, I still think you can argue that he was ahead. Not attacking Cruncher earlier was not a mistake. Trying to punish Cruncher's 3rd or macroing up are 2 different routes that are both viable. Things may have turned out differently if Idra took the other route, but you can't just theorycraft and say that Idra would have easily won with that route.
As for game 2: again, Cruncher was fully expecting aggression or at least aware of the possibility of it (evidence of this - see post game interview, see fact that he double probe scouted for a 6 pool and went forge before nexus on such a big map). The game was actually much closer than most people think, since it was over as soon as the first drop killed half of Cruncher's probes. The continued aggression after the first drop just made it seem like Idra was completely destroying Cruncher, whereas the reality is Cruncher already lost at that point.
So why do I say it was close? Cruncher stated that he didn't have as much practice on the 2nd map, and his timings therefore weren't as good. His first colossus easily survived the first drop, and had Cruncher's timings been a little better and he would have been able to get off another round of warp-ins, or had a 2nd colossus, and not need to pull probes. Things could have turned out differently, who knows. My point is that you can't use his loss in game 2 as evidence of why the same thing would have worked in game 1.
|
On March 30 2011 02:24 superstartran wrote:
They are mistakes.
Idra allowed Cruncher to put down the 3rd before the 11 minute mark, and left him unpunished even though Cruncher opened with a build that is VERY punishable.You need a Gateway army to defend that 3rd, of which Cruncher had no sort. Any bust play would have killed Cruncher's 3rd severely delaying the 200 deathball.
Cruncher took a 3rd that is HARD to defend. The 3rd near his base is much easier to defend due to proximity and positioning of said 3rd. The 3rd at the top is easily killed once you get down the ramp. The 3rd near Cruncher's base is a MUCH tougher 3rd to break.
Idra allowed Cruncher to saturate the 3rd, and continue to make a huge deathball without attempting any sort of decent trade.
Idra with Ultras could have broken forcefields, killed off the limited ground force supporting his VRs, and proceed to clean-up with reinforcement Hydra/Corrupters. If I see Machine, July, Nestea, Morrow, and other Z players do it, why can't Idra?
There's a lot of theorycrafting here. Those other zergs you listed have also been handed their fair share of defeats with their alternative, more aggressive styles. Idra has had a fair amount of success with his macro style, becoming one of the top zergs in the world. So, it's obviously not as clear cut as you seem to think. That pretty much proves that it is a playstyle choice. Do you seriously think Idra has never tried the aggressive bust approach? Given that Idra's playstyle choice was made deliberately after extensive practice using many strategies by one of the top players in the world, your claim that this strategy is a mistake based on a myopic theorycrafting session is pretty unconvincing.
But I'm not trying to argue that Idra's play was perfect, but rather that Crusher's was pretty lackluster. Let me put it this way: I feel like if I played protoss for 3 weeks, I could do anything that I saw Crusher do in games 1 and 3. However, I feel like I could play every day for the rest of my life and still never come close to pulling off the multi-pronged dropping micro/macro multitasking that Idra did in game 2.
|
God reading IdrA's actual BM towards cruncher is so pathetic. I wish rekrul would come back and crush idrA again like hes done a couple times in the past when IdrA's shittalking really got out of control.
|
@Wren
Right, by that I mean his mechanics are top notch. His physical ability to properly execute his chosen strategies is excellent. When have you seen him miss an inject? When have you seen him not spot something on the minimap? When has his creep spread not been what it should because he was letting it slip?
Never. He doesn't make those stupid execution mistakes that all the rest of us do, but because he can win with these mechanics alone, he seems to forget about strategy altogether, or rather, he seems to forget that strategy is not a static entity. He makes classic tactical blunders like, well, running a roach/hydra/corrupter army into a deathball, fr'instance and he ignores classic RTS logic.
I feel like Idra would be a far more victorious player if he'd sit down and read the art of war, the campaigns of Alexander and Julis Ceasar instead of focusing so hard on mechanics.
|
On March 30 2011 02:56 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 02:24 superstartran wrote:
Cruncher took a 3rd that is HARD to defend. The 3rd near his base is much easier to defend due to proximity and positioning of said 3rd. The 3rd at the top is easily killed once you get down the ramp. The 3rd near Cruncher's base is a MUCH tougher 3rd to break.
lol, are you saying that a TSL player who beat Idra using superior strategy and preparation (no one is going to argue that Cruncher has better mechanics than Idra) made a strategically poor decision in taking the wrong 3rd base on a map that he spent countless hours studying and practicing on, using a build that centers around getting that 3rd base? Who are you again? While I don't necessarily disagree with you that Idra could have attempted some sort of earlier aggression, the macro route that he chose instead is still perfectly valid, By the time Idra maxed out on supply, I still think you can argue that he was ahead. Not attacking Cruncher earlier was not a mistake. Trying to punish Cruncher's 3rd or macroing up are 2 different routes that are both viable. Things may have turned out differently if Idra took the other route, but you can't just theorycraft and say that Idra would have easily won with that route. As for game 2: again, Cruncher was fully expecting aggression or at least aware of the possibility of it (evidence of this - see post game interview, see fact that he double probe scouted for a 6 pool and went forge before nexus on such a big map). The game was actually much closer than most people think, since it was over as soon as the first drop killed half of Cruncher's probes. The continued aggression after the first drop just made it seem like Idra was completely destroying Cruncher, whereas the reality is Cruncher already lost at that point. So why do I say it was close? Cruncher stated that he didn't have as much practice on the 2nd map, and his timings therefore weren't as good. His first colossus easily survived the first drop, and had Cruncher's timings been a little better and he would have been able to get off another round of warp-ins, or had a 2nd colossus, and not need to pull probes. Things could have turned out differently, who knows. My point is that you can't use his loss in game 2 as evidence of why the same thing would have worked in game 1.
Cruncher took that 3rd because he knew Idra would go the macro route almost 99.9% sure. If Idra didn't, he would have busted that 3rd down. Look at what Cruncher has versus what Idra has at 10:50. Cruncher has almost nothing to defend versus any type of bust / big drop play. Yes, Cruncher indeed did prepare for Idra heavily in G1, because he took that expansion because he knew Idra would not attack. This is CLEARLY evident because there's a huge hole in Cruncher's strategy where he can easily be ran over by any type of 12 minute bust play. Any drop play, or any multi pronged attack would have forced Cruncher to choose one or the other, causing him to lose heavily at one expansion, thus delaying his deathball.
One route is clearly unviable. Every Z in 1.2 tried to play big macro vs P and almost always lost. The Z players who were successful in 1.2 played a highly aggressive style that kept P unit count low, or denied an early 3rd. Idra's inability to play aggressive has put him in a position where he cannot possibly hope to win versus people who play greedy against him. This has happened to him time, and time again from BW to SC2. Anyone who has known him from back then knows that Idra always plays safe economy, so any cheese / greedy play will has a very good chance of beating him.
Cruncher's play was clearly greedy, any decent P player knows this. He teched hard, forge fast expanded, did no damage with his Stargate opening, and took an early 3rd with virtually nothing to defend it with, in a position that is hard to defend. His timings were ultra greedy to the max, and he was left unpunished because Idra refused to play aggressive, period. It isn't theorycraft at all when every good P player knows you cannot possibly hope to take a 3rd that early unless you want to eat a bust of some sort.
Game 2 can be used as an example of how Game 1 could have gone differently because Idra reacted totally different to Cruncher's play, which was almost carbon copy from game 1. Cruncher indeed suspected the possibility of aggressive play, but did not practice that much against it. You can tell his timings were off, meaning that Cruncher was expecting Idra to play macro and not any type of early mid game aggression. G1 would have gone alot differently because the way Cruncher was playing, he was clearly expecting Idra to do what he did, and that was to sit back camp and just take the entire map.
Look at the timings in G1 and unit counts. Cruncher has basically 1 Colossus when he is taking his 3rd and a very small Gateway army, with some Phoenix / 2 VR. Any kind of Hydra drop on the 3rd, in the main, or any type of heavy bust play to the 3rd would have forced Cruncher to defend, thus forcing a trade. Any type of trade at that point, even a semi-decent one would have heavily favored Idra considering his huge economy at that point. Cruncher's play was specifically tailored for Idra, and Idra played right into his hands, making the mistake of playing exactly how Cruncher wants him to play. Going the macro route in G1 is exactly what Cruncher wants Idra to do. That is a mistake, not a "different tactical decision". It is like how Jaedong cheeses Flash because he KNOWS Flash will play greedy on a certain map. How can it be a "different" choice when it costs you the game? It is a tactical / strategical blunder if it causes you to lose the game.
|
On March 30 2011 03:12 Unwardil wrote:
He doesn't make those stupid execution mistakes that all the rest of us do, but because he can win with these mechanics alone, he seems to forget about strategy altogether, or rather, he seems to forget that strategy is not a static entity. He makes classic tactical blunders like, well, running a roach/hydra/corrupter army into a deathball, fr'instance and he ignores classic RTS logic.
I see what you're getting at, and yes, agreed. While I won't go so far as to say what's going on in his head, his mechanics and micro (especially w/ mutas) is excellent, but his macro decisions are often poor.
I feel like Idra would be a far more victorious player if he'd sit down and read the art of war, the campaigns of Alexander and Julis Ceasar instead of focusing so hard on mechanics.
ROFL, looking for warring help seems like the last thing in the world he'd do, which probably means it's the most important thing he's lacking!
|
Wow , i wonder why Anhic defends Crunchers skill so hardcore.
+ Show Spoiler +Let me say it this way:
I'm very sad about the fact, that the deciding game has so many lucky elements.
The strategy of Cruncher in that game was BAD and i don't think, the deserved that win.
To back up my opinion:
He chronos Warp-Gate to fake a Warp-Gate all-in.
He expands.
He does a Warp-Gate all-in.
IdrA dies, because he has not enough units.
Where's the mistake?
Why is this stupid?
Well, Faking a early 4-Gate is a way to make your opponent waste larva to make fighting units instead of drones.
So if you attack, your opponent will be prepared.
If you just attack later (with a 5/6-Gate), your opponent will still have his army and can reinforce it a lot quicker to survive.
The problem in this game: Idra didn't fall for the "Fake Warpgate All-in". If he did, he would've survived and won.
To win, because my opponent didn't fall for my fake is just... not considered a "strategy" but pure luck and stupid.
It's not even clever, genius or good.. it's just luck. And thats very disappointing.
|
It was Napolean that said if you want to be good at war, make yourself intimately familiar with the campaigns of Ceasar, Alexander and... There was another, but that was his point. Napolean was pretty good at war all in all.
As it so happens, while taking a dump, (all good ideas come on the throne) I think I may have devised a tactic for zergs to be able to beat the deathball in the open field only using corrupters, hydras, roaches and lings. I'll post a different post for it of course.
|
I think game 3 really showed the issues with zerg scouting, Idras overlords got denied and cruncher only showed the amount of units Protoss normaly uses to pressure. At that point it was coinflip, (Is Protoss just poking or all-in) and Idra lost it by making more drones than needed to defend the push.
|
On March 30 2011 03:28 Iatrik wrote:
Wow , i wonder why Anhic defends Crunchers skill so hardcore.
Me too, I wonder... 
Regardless of why I'm defending Cruncher, I'm hoping to shed some strategical insight behind his play since everyone seems to be so oblivious of it, especially the OP. This is the strategy forum, and I'm discussing his strategy.
Game 3 was not pure luck. Taken from the post game interview:
Q: In game 3 you decided to do a fast 6 warpgate attack on Crevasse. What was your plan?
My plan on Crevasse was to mix my build up. First two game I decided to forge fast expo, into collosus/voidray. I expected him to think I would be planning the same kind of build. When he scouted me I tried to fake a 4gate, since I beat him on ladder just a few hours before our match with that strategy. I also went fast hallcuination to get scouting out, to check if he over-reacted to what he saw. I saw no units and after I scouted him, I decided to pressure. I did not plan on winning the game with that push, but he had ZERO units, so I just ended the game.
|
It sounds to me like the anti-idra faction believe if only IdrA had taken down the 3rd he could have won the game. But since he didn't it was a huge mistake that ultimately lost him the game.
This implies the zerg is now in a position where if he misses a timing attack he is at an extreme disadvantage, EVEN though he is ahead in drones, army, and everything that matters. Certainly there are plenty of instances where if you miss a timing attack and your opponent was greedy, you'll be behind.
Game 1 I think Idra probably should've sac'd 20 supply worth of banelings to kill Cruncher's 3rd, I don't think anything else would've been effective as the time it took for Cruncher's ball to get between his 3rd and his main was very low, and roaches would not have killed the nexus quick enough. Other than that, I have no suggestions. 2nd guessing his late game unit composition is pointless. I think Cruncher won because the map was very easy to turtle on, and IdrA was unable to break the protoss deathball.
Game 2, once again the map becomes a huge factor. The main and expansions of this map have plenty of open space around them allowing for easy positioning of dropships and overlords. Unlike shakuras which clearly is in a corner. Hydra drops would've been effective on this map regardless of what build cruncher was going for.
Game 3 There's really not much to analyze. Idra clearly should've played more cautious. But after game 1&2 I was left with the impression that Idra was clearly the 'better' player and then he loses to a timing attack in game 3 after extended mind-games.
|
On March 30 2011 03:39 DuneBug wrote:
It sounds to me like the anti-idra faction believe if only IdrA had taken down the 3rd he could have won the game. But since he didn't it was a huge mistake that ultimately lost him the game.
This implies the zerg is now in a position where if he misses a timing attack he is at an extreme disadvantage, EVEN though he is ahead in drones, army, and everything that matters. Certainly there are plenty of instances where if you miss a timing attack and your opponent was greedy, you'll be behind.
Game 1 I think Idra probably should've sac'd 20 supply worth of banelings to kill Cruncher's 3rd, I don't think anything else would've been effective as the time it took for Cruncher's ball to get between his 3rd and his main was very low, and roaches would not have killed the nexus quick enough. Other than that, I have no suggestions. 2nd guessing his late game unit composition is pointless. I think Cruncher won because the map was very easy to turtle on, and IdrA was unable to break the protoss deathball.
Game 2, once again the map becomes a huge factor. The main and expansions of this map have plenty of open space around them allowing for easy positioning of dropships and overlords. Unlike shakuras which clearly is in a corner. Hydra drops would've been effective on this map regardless of what build cruncher was going for.
Game 3 There's really not much to analyze. Idra clearly should've played more cautious. But after game 1&2 I was left with the impression that Idra was clearly the 'better' player and then he loses to a timing attack in game 3 after extended mind-games.
Cruncher doesn't even have a Colossus while taking his 3rd out yet; Hydra drop onto the 3rd would have killed it and denied him precious gas that he needed for his deathball. Idra was just dumb and didn't do any type of aggressive play, and sat back and allowed Cruncher to mass up his deathball. That is exactly what Cruncher wanted (ask him, you will get that answer from him) Idra to do, as he knew once he has his 200/200 deathball he is almost for sure going to win the game.
Any normal bust / aggressive timing attack would have prevented Cruncher's 3rd from going up. Idra was silly for not doing such a thing, and I know he's probably kicking himself in the shins after watching the replay, seeing that Cruncher has virtually nothing to defend his 3rd at all.
Hydra drops would have worked on Shakuras, it would have easily denied Cruncher's 3rd or hurt him severely if he dropped in the main. Without a 3rd Cruncher's deathball takes alot longer to mass, which means Idra has plenty of time to larvae and store up.
|
On March 30 2011 03:28 Iatrik wrote:Wow , i wonder why Anhic defends Crunchers skill so hardcore. + Show Spoiler +Let me say it this way:
I'm very sad about the fact, that the deciding game has so many lucky elements.
The strategy of Cruncher in that game was BAD and i don't think, the deserved that win.
To back up my opinion:
He chronos Warp-Gate to fake a Warp-Gate all-in.
He expands.
He does a Warp-Gate all-in.
IdrA dies, because he has not enough units.
Where's the mistake?
Why is this stupid?
Well, Faking a early 4-Gate is a way to make your opponent waste larva to make fighting units instead of drones.
So if you attack, your opponent will be prepared.
If you just attack later (with a 5/6-Gate), your opponent will still have his army and can reinforce it a lot quicker to survive.
The problem in this game: Idra didn't fall for the "Fake Warpgate All-in". If he did, he would've survived and won.
To win, because my opponent didn't fall for my fake is just... not considered a "strategy" but pure luck and stupid.
It's not even clever, genius or good.. it's just luck. And thats very disappointing.
Lol what are you talking about,
he had hallucination - he scouted that idra hadnt fallen for the fake 4 gate, but that he had no units so then he decided to attack, nothing lucky about that
|
Respect to whoever's highlighting good posts, it really makes taking a peek through the thread much more effective and also points a good example of what quality-posting should be like 
= awesome new feature TL implements, continuing to update and balance the forums better than BW patches
|
On March 30 2011 03:42 superstartran wrote:
Cruncher doesn't even have a Colossus while taking his 3rd out yet; Hydra drop onto the 3rd would have killed it and denied him precious gas that he needed for his deathball. Idra was just dumb and didn't do any type of aggressive play, and sat back and allowed Cruncher to mass up his deathball. That is exactly what Cruncher wanted (ask him, you will get that answer from him) Idra to do, as he knew once he has his 200/200 deathball he is almost for sure going to win the game.
Any normal bust / aggressive timing attack would have prevented Cruncher's 3rd from going up. Idra was silly for not doing such a thing, and I know he's probably kicking himself in the shins after watching the replay, seeing that Cruncher has virtually nothing to defend his 3rd at all.
Hydra drops would have worked on Shakuras, it would have easily denied Cruncher's 3rd or hurt him severely if he dropped in the main. Without a 3rd Cruncher's deathball takes alot longer to mass, which means Idra has plenty of time to larvae and store up.
I feel like your arguments have already appeared in this thread about 15 times. Your basis is that if IdrA had denied his third at the north expo, which he only could've done (with minimal investment) in a specific timing, IdrA would've won the game. This may or may not be true, as there's no evidence that cruncher couldn't have just gotten up a 3rd after a few colossi came out. Yes Idra should take advantage of those opportunities, but no it should not have lost him the game. That is the crux of my post.
Idra did do aggressive play after he maxed his army, and I don't believe Hydra drops would work on Shakuras, the areas of vulnerability are about 50% of what exists on Terminus in terms of drop play.
|
"styles of play" becomes more and less effective depending on metagame moreso than anything else. Idra's macro has worked for him in the past, but is obviously less effective now. It might become the next "it" strategy in the future. Depends on the metagame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
