| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
One of the best examples I've seen of this was the MKP vs Nada semifinals were MKP scv marine all-ined nada for the win after seeing gas first from him before. That was such a cool thing to do imo. I thought idra would still be better overall despite having a style disadvantage but needless to say he was not. I think it's obvious that Cruncher has skill and it's quite ignorant to claim differently. I remember making the same points when he qualified for TSL and when he beat Sjow recently. | ||
|
abominable
101 Posts
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. there's not really an 'anti-idra' faction. i don't dislike idra, i just find that every time he skips the GG he not only shows a lack of respect to his opponent, but the game itself and everyone watching the match. he might as well say "this game was bad, you suck, im much more skilled", and i can't stand that. on the opposite end of the spectrum, white ra is a legend... and a fan favourite. i really like some of idra's play though, and his knowledge of the game is astounding. why can't he just get on with it and stop b*tching all the time like a baby? | ||
|
CrAzEdMiKe
Canada151 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On March 29 2011 23:18 Onos wrote: I guess you must have missed game two. Because after that game you can not say that IdrA always does the same thing. I would say he responded perfectly to what he saw in game 1 and adapted to Cruncher's strategy beautifully. And note, that I also said that IdrA has to change his strategies in order to be more successful. The moment he did, he "crunched" Cruncher (ha ha ha I'm so punny). I'm not saying IdrA is a n00b who is incapable of growth or change or something, but notice that when he DOES change up his gameplay (which is incredibly rare) he really kicked some ass. As a Z player I can tell you that the droning up decision by IdrA was right 95% of the time. What did he see coming out of the base? zealot, sentry. In the majority of the time that happens it is actually a fake by the P baiting you into units. You make drones - he kills you. You make units and he attacks, he runs away with forcefields to protect and kills you later cause you are behind. I'm going to put a spoiler inside of a spoiler... Because the topic I've chosen here is... Well, not clear cut by any means. + Show Spoiler + I may not be a Zerg player, nor a super master incredible player by any means... However, something I haven't quite figured out is why Zerg needs to be either 100% Droning or 100% army production. Lets for simplicities sake make it a one base vs one base situation. Lets assume that both players are being fairly macro oriented, not trying any crazy rush/worker cutting strategies. Now, a Protoss player will pump out a Probe every 17 seconds (again for simplicities sake, lets just take Chronoboost out of the equation for now). Now, a Hatchery will spawn a Larva every 15 seconds which means without queens/additional hatcheries and taking Chronoboost out of the equation, the Zerg player will almost be able to keep up with Protoss probe production (since he has to skip a larva once in a while for an Overlord) Now, I understand that obviously you need to make military units and early on, this cuts into your drone count. However, lets just say that the Protoss didn't chronoboost his probes but was constantly making them without supply blocks for 10 minutes. He should have 35 probes at the 10 minute mark on one base. I'm getting to my point slowly and I'll try and speed up what I'm trying to say, but basically, if you're a Zerg player and you have 35 drones at the ten minute mark and are one base vs one base against the Protoss, in terms of economy you will be equal (obviously as a Zerg you should never be 10 minutes into a game and still on one base). Now factor in the queens. Assuming you hit every injection (which I'm sure IdrA does) that means you create 4 extra larvae every 40 seconds. Taking into consideration that some Drones were lost for buildings, you can turn quite a few of those into military units and still keep up with the Protoss Probe count. So assuming you spend each larvae as it pops out for a Drone, and say 1 from the spawn larva for an Overlord and a second for a drone to replace a built building, that leaves you two larvae to use to bolster your army. Obviously there are a slew of considerations to take into account, and there are obviously times where it is super safe to drone up hard and situations where you need all the attacking units you can muster... But my point is that I think that the Drone/army unit spending ratio on larva hasn't exactly been figured out yet. IdrA didn't NEED to produce drones from ALL those larvae. He could have produced say 3 Drones and 4 Roaches. For IdrA, it seems like his decision-making for larvae is simply "Drone or attacking unit" and not asking "How many drones, how many attacking units?" As said, I am by no means an expert player yet... And I am a Protoss player first so I may not quite grasp the nuances of larvae spending... But it does seem that most Zergs will lean hard left or hard right instead of trying to take more of a "smooth turn". But that is a whoooooooole other topic and quite frankly, there's no way to tell that IdrA would have lost for sure had he gone 100% roaches. Yes, he would have been behind if Cruncher was faking him out, but lets be frank... Players come back from being behind allllllll the time. So there's no way to actually know for certain what would have happened in the land of "What ifs" Though again, please take this huge paragraph with a grain of salt. I am a Platinum level player who plays Protoss, so my understanding of Zerg really only comes from watching replays of pros and other casts. I'm not even saying I know better than these guys and that I've come up with the "holy grail" of larva usage... But that being said, I *do* feel that the drone to army mixture of Zerg hasn't been properly refined yet. And the FF's were beautiful but I think blizz should fix that such that you can not have more units in the small space where less units would fit. Just move the 'extra' units behind the FFs (probably hard to implement) I do not disagree with this statement in the slightest. Obviously it's pretty dumb that you could in theory with super ultra amazing computer processing precision forcefields to box up the army of the opponent and just kill it while they can do nothing. I think a fair alternative to this problem might be to have them be put in stasis like the Arbiters from SC1 (which btw, Forcefields to me always looked exactly like stasis units lol). That way, the function of the forcefield still remains intact as the units near the forcefield ARE held back, but at the same time you can't just freebie the units either since they're protected BY the forcefield. As said, I don't disagree that this is pretty unfair, and hopefully Blizzard finds a way to solve the problem in an intelligent manner. I still do not know how you deal with that deathball. What kills 15 voids + 4 colossus as zerg with FFs in patch 1.2? Nothing really. The point I was trying to make was that it is easy to just call it "The Deathball". But the Protoss is still making certain decisions regarding the composition of that Deathball. Lets just say the Zerg made a TON of Mutalisks early, and I mean a huge huge ton. Do you think the Protoss would opt for pure Void Rays or for some additional Phoenix instead? It's an extreme example, but my point was that in the instance of this analysis, absolutely nothing was ever mentioned about what kind of composition the Death ball possessed, was there a particular reason Cruncher decided at one point to make his A move? As others have mentioned, nothing is mentioned about Crunchers viewpoint and I find this frustrating. It wasn't a comment regarding strategy whatsoever, more of a comment regarding the analysis. A good example of my complaint occuring is how the Hallucinated Phoenix scouting IdrA in game 3 wasn't mentioned (at least when I read it). That is super huge and really sheds light on the decision making of Cruncher. And as a Z player after round of 32, seeing Z go 3-6 I have to wonder wth? Small sample I know but still. And who went through - morrow who baneling busted (great choice vs 14 CC, but I still don't understand why Jinro went 144CC in game 3 after losing 1), Mondragon who actually did an awesome job vs. a stargate opening (I need to watch those games again to try and incorporate that in my play) and Sen's whose games I missed. All I can say is that there are tournaments where the Zerg were defeated, and there are others where Zerg are victorious. Balance issues are not something I tend to really think too much about, because whether or not you like it, unless Blizzard patches it, that's the way it is... So just try and figure out a way to deal with it. Starcraft 2 is still in it's early stages and people are still figuring things out and learning ways to abuse things. As the game gets more evolved, Blizzard will be able to more accurately judge where everything is heading and hopefully tweak in an appropriate manner. But to me, the subject of balance is always kind of useless... Because like I said, that's the way it is and just try and deal with it until Blizzard can do something to fix it. I know it sounds lame and well, it is... But that's the way real life can be too. Sometimes it's unfair and you just have to deal with it and stop crying about it. Sooner or later things will look up and get fixed. Anyways, now that I'm finished reading the rest of the thread I'll just put up some additional thoughts. The Sunday episode of Day[9] did a LOT to really convince me of Cruncher's skill. He may not be at the level of HuK or White Ra at this particular point in time, but he certainly is no slouch. Yes, he made mistakes but so did IdrA. Let's face it, we are human and we are prone to making errors no matter what it is. Like I said before, I am literally biased against IdrA and I am fully aware of this... However, I am biased in a personal way as in I literally do not like the guy at all and every game I watch him play I hope he gets steamrolled. He is however, THE master of macro in it's purest form. Like I stated previously, this is really harming him right now as there are a lot of strategies that are able to abuse his... But that being said, when SC2 stops being so fresh off the press and people have really worked a lot of bugs out of builds and things start to get more streamlined, his constant practice at macro WILL (and it already does) pay off bigtime. I don't think IdrA will win anything big in the near near future, however, much to my chagrin I do believe that once the strategies are figured out a little more and people know what the correct responses are to strategies A B C, IdrA will make a comeback. Why? Because he is one dimensional, and if the strategies even start to become one dimensional, then it becomes more and more about how well you macro, and that is where IdrA is the strongest. But in this particular series, IdrA was his predictable self for most of the series, and he paid the price for it. Unfortunately for him, his arrogance and pride will likely prevent him from adjusting his play too significantly. He probably watched the replay and said afterwards "Omg what a n00b for expanding to the 3rd when he did" and just chalk it up to "bad play" on his opponent's part all the while not really focusing on his own. It actually makes me wonder if IdrA ends up playing more poorly against players he deems "n00bs" simply because he thinks that he has the game in the bag already and just goes into IdrA autopilot macro mode. No way to ever know as I will not grow mutant psychic powers, and even if I did... I'd be more likely to use those psychic powers to force him to say gl hf, gg and not flame his opponents. (Bad manners really really bother me... This is a game for crying out loud theres no reason to get worked up about it). | ||
|
LagT_T
Argentina535 Posts
On March 30 2011 03:39 DuneBug wrote: The anti-idra faction L O EFFIN L at idralings with delusions of grandeur. User was warned for this post | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On March 29 2011 07:26 DoubleReed wrote: Even with the large corruptor numbers he had, Cruncher still had two colossi left at the end. I doubt hydras and lings would have been effective. Personally, I'm still at a loss to what beats void rays in those numbers in any sort of reasonable way. Maybe Infestors would be better? Man the Protoss deathball is scary as hell. Can someone show me a game of someone beating VR/Colossus effectively without the drop/timing attack? Also, in game 1 compared to game 2, I doubt the dropping would have been as effective on shakuras. But it may still have worked. I don't think you are supposed to be able to beat it. Cost is outrageous and it should own everything on the map. Key is not letting toss get to that point. Sacing his 200 army for Crunchers FE and whittling down the 150 ball would have been a good start. | ||
|
Onos
Canada107 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I may not be a Zerg player, nor a super master incredible player by any means... However, something I haven't quite figured out is why Zerg needs to be either 100% Droning or 100% army production. Lets for simplicities sake make it a one base vs one base situation. Lets assume that both players are being fairly macro oriented, not trying any crazy rush/worker cutting strategies. Now, a Protoss player will pump out a Probe every 17 seconds (again for simplicities sake, lets just take Chronoboost out of the equation for now). Now, a Hatchery will spawn a Larva every 15 seconds which means without queens/additional hatcheries and taking Chronoboost out of the equation, the Zerg player will almost be able to keep up with Protoss probe production (since he has to skip a larva once in a while for an Overlord) Now, I understand that obviously you need to make military units and early on, this cuts into your drone count. However, lets just say that the Protoss didn't chronoboost his probes but was constantly making them without supply blocks for 10 minutes. He should have 35 probes at the 10 minute mark on one base. I'm getting to my point slowly and I'll try and speed up what I'm trying to say, but basically, if you're a Zerg player and you have 35 drones at the ten minute mark and are one base vs one base against the Protoss, in terms of economy you will be equal (obviously as a Zerg you should never be 10 minutes into a game and still on one base). Now factor in the queens. Assuming you hit every injection (which I'm sure IdrA does) that means you create 4 extra larvae every 40 seconds. Taking into consideration that some Drones were lost for buildings, you can turn quite a few of those into military units and still keep up with the Protoss Probe count. So assuming you spend each larvae as it pops out for a Drone, and say 1 from the spawn larva for an Overlord and a second for a drone to replace a built building, that leaves you two larvae to use to bolster your army. Obviously there are a slew of considerations to take into account, and there are obviously times where it is super safe to drone up hard and situations where you need all the attacking units you can muster... But my point is that I think that the Drone/army unit spending ratio on larva hasn't exactly been figured out yet. IdrA didn't NEED to produce drones from ALL those larvae. He could have produced say 3 Drones and 4 Roaches. For IdrA, it seems like his decision-making for larvae is simply "Drone or attacking unit" and not asking "How many drones, how many attacking units?" As said, I am by no means an expert player yet... And I am a Protoss player first so I may not quite grasp the nuances of larvae spending... But it does seem that most Zergs will lean hard left or hard right instead of trying to take more of a "smooth turn". But that is a whoooooooole other topic and quite frankly, there's no way to tell that IdrA would have lost for sure had he gone 100% roaches. Yes, he would have been behind if Cruncher was faking him out, but lets be frank... Players come back from being behind allllllll the time. So there's no way to actually know for certain what would have happened in the land of "What ifs" Though again, please take this huge paragraph with a grain of salt. I am a Platinum level player who plays Protoss, so my understanding of Zerg really only comes from watching replays of pros and other casts. I'm not even saying I know better than these guys and that I've come up with the "holy grail" of larva usage... But that being said, I *do* feel that the drone to army mixture of Zerg hasn't been properly refined yet. While all that is right in theory, the problem is that a zerg can not be on equal income to a P/T because our units 'suck'. And by suck I mean they are not cost efficient. (Plus zerg does not have any 'true' counter units. None of our core units do +damage vs. something except corruptors) I actually switched to P for a bit and then returned to Z with this mentality - for every inject I will use X drones for army and Y for drones, thinking exactly the way you were thinking - basically imitating the P capability of building probes/army at the same time. But it does not work - if I match his probe numbers I lose (even more so vs T and damn mules). The rest of your post I generally agree. Except the BM part. God knows how much I BM and cry in SC2 even though In RL I am quite a nice person. That's because I hate losing - even if it's just a game. | ||
|
Trobot
United States125 Posts
You yourself mentioned that Cruncher took a very quick third, while teching a little too quickly to have a useful amount of defense, and that IdrA did nothing about it. It seems to me that the proper response here would have been to make a few roaches (what does a few lost drones matter when you've already got such an economic lead?) and wiped out/severely delayed the third/forced Cruncher to delay his tech, which would have given IdrA a much later, much weaker void/col/stalk ball--or even better, given IdrA a contain on Cruncher's two remaining bases. IdrA's definitely not known for being an aggressive player, but given game 2's results versus games 1 and 3, I'd say that the way to respond to Cruncher's play would have been aggression. | ||
|
swanny_11
Australia46 Posts
Zerg has the ability to mass expand and maintain map control but its all for nothing really, you cant get a better econ than 3 bases without ruining your army supply, and zerg has by far(so far) the least supply efficient units. Is there any comp zerg can make that goes close to toss total mineral/gas count for their army?? | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On March 31 2011 00:27 swanny_11 wrote: Zerg just has nothing that can beat void ray cost effectively, i guess infestors will be a must have now. Zerg has the ability to mass expand and maintain map control but its all for nothing really, you cant get a better econ than 3 bases without ruining your army supply, and zerg has by far(so far) the least supply efficient units. Is there any comp zerg can make that goes close to toss total mineral/gas count for their army?? Lots of people are missing the point in my opinion. If a Terran sits in his base and does nothing all game against a Zerg of course he loses. Then you go "Well, that Terran was stupid he didn't apply pressure". ZvP against Void Rays is like that. Void Rays are SLOW and take time to do damage and need to be in big numbers. But since they expensive and powerful for just 3 supply; if you get a 200 supply army with lots of void rays, then yes it's ridiculously strong. It comes back to the fact that IdrA let cruncher do whatever the hell he wanted. If IdrA played every game like game2 of that series, he would be a much much better player imo. Have a plan with aggression in it, and execute it brilliantly like he always does. Then he'd be a player to be feared instead of a guy you just plan a nice rush against and win. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On March 31 2011 00:27 swanny_11 wrote: Zerg just has nothing that can beat void ray cost effectively, i guess infestors will be a must have now. Zerg has the ability to mass expand and maintain map control but its all for nothing really, you cant get a better econ than 3 bases without ruining your army supply, and zerg has by far(so far) the least supply efficient units. Is there any comp zerg can make that goes close to toss total mineral/gas count for their army?? They are not supposed to like blizz sez "Protoss Characteristics Heavy Hitters Pound for pound, the protoss field StarCraft II’s strongest and most durable units. That power comes at a price, as their units tend to be costly." To use exploit this trait and beat protoss as Zerg its not about it's not even necessarily about winning the game early on. It's not even about killing protoss before they get a "deathball." What it requires is constant supply trading because Protoss units are extremely ineffective and costly in small numbers. For example as long as you kill just his VRs and even if you lose 30 corruptors, that puts you ahead because you have the map. You can now remax quickly and keep re-engaging before he can get multiple VR out agian because they take forever. This is why I like agro Zergs like July so much is they understand this matchup (and terran too) and the math. Basically Zerg was meant to be played with non stop supply trading not 200/200 middle of the map battles many zergs like to do. They need to switch to protoss or terran if that's the kind of game they like. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
Protoss Units: Supply efficient, cost inefficient. Grow exponentially stronger as more unit types mix in. Zerg Units: Cost Efficient, supply inefficient. Increases in strength in a more linear fashion. The higher supply counts get, the worse off zerg is, relative to protoss. Make use of your cost advantage, and don't let protoss get big when they employ a strategy like this. | ||
|
CrAzEdMiKe
Canada151 Posts
On March 30 2011 23:40 Onos wrote: While all that is right in theory, the problem is that a zerg can not be on equal income to a P/T because our units 'suck'. And by suck I mean they are not cost efficient. (Plus zerg does not have any 'true' counter units. None of our core units do +damage vs. something except corruptors) I actually switched to P for a bit and then returned to Z with this mentality - for every inject I will use X drones for army and Y for drones, thinking exactly the way you were thinking - basically imitating the P capability of building probes/army at the same time. But it does not work - if I match his probe numbers I lose (even more so vs T and damn mules). The rest of your post I generally agree. Except the BM part. God knows how much I BM and cry in SC2 even though In RL I am quite a nice person. That's because I hate losing - even if it's just a game. I completely agree that a Zerg cannot be on equal income to a Protoss player and that your units do "suck" as you put it xD ... Although I wouldn't say cost inefficient in all cases because some units are ridiculously cost efficient such as the Roach. But regardless... As said, I am not a Zerg player so I don't completely understand the nuances of larva management. That being said, that was a very very broken down and narrow-example analysis. The thing is, a Zerg player should always be up a base on a Protoss. This much is known already... However, the way a Zerg drones is a different story... Because once you have that second base you have of course double production (much like if a Protoss were to take a second Nexus, his Probe production would of course double). Now, since Protoss do not always expand nearly as quickly as a Zerg, you could still take what I said into consideration, since now instead of having to go 2 Larvae Drone, 1 Larva Overlord, 2 Larva attacking units (like in my one base vs one base scenario) you could now go 4 drones, 2 overlords, 4 attacking units. You are still getting additional income as you've got 16 patches to saturate versus 8 which still gives that crucial extra income to combat the Protoss. That being said, there are OBVIOUSLY times where it is safe to go 100% Drones and times where you need 100% attacking units. But I think in those "grey area" situations it needs to be ironed out a little better. In the instance of this game, even if he had made 100% attacking units, I don't think it would have been 100% clear cut that he would have lost... As he could have used those units to apply some pressure on Cruncher. Again, that is all in the land of "maybe and what-ifs" I feel that this is one of those instances where IdrA's playstyle burnt him... Since if he feels he can get away with the Drones he will pick the drones first and foremost... Because at that particular point he wasn't really behind *yet*. Obviously you don't want to get into a situation where you are behind if you can avoid it... But again I feel that IdrA's psyche works against him as that he always wants to be *ahead* of his opponent. His desire to pull ahead is what cost him this game. As for BM, I'm actually not too phased about BM on the ladder. I mean hell, it's some random dude and sometimes it gets really frustrating dealing with certain strategies. I personally don't BM as I don't get too worked up about games... But I find that BM coming from a pro gamer is actually far far worse. These people are being looked up to and watched all the time, and they are supposed to be the "examples" of what us lower players could be. To make another pro sports analogy, you don't really see that much BM in professional athletic games (Football, Hockey, Soccer etc). It's about respect for the game itself... When a pro player BMs it just hurts the game is all. And well, I find it extremely childish and pointless. I have no issues swearing to myself or taking a hit at the desk... But even if a player completely all out cheeses me, I'm usually not so mad at that player for cheesing me as I am at myself for not spotting the cheese. Starcraft 2 is a game about action and reaction... You have to react correctly to what your opponent is doing. If you scout a 6 pool are you going to just leave your choke completely wide open? If you do, then it certainly is not the 6 poolers fault that you lost, it is your own. So there's no sense bitching at the player who executed it (in most instances it makes you look even more foolish). I find that a simple "gg" and leave immediately in those types of situations is much more classy (I won't tell them well played unless I feel that they played well =P ) and it helps you just get over it more quickly and move on to the next game. | ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
I mean just look at the foods right before Idra attacks, where day makes a note of it. It was like 50 to 110. Not saying Crunchers style was bad, but it has a pretty shitty timing where it can get raped by drops. | ||
|
Asparagus
United States269 Posts
On March 29 2011 07:41 Anihc wrote: Wow you are incredibly blind. First of all everything is written from Idra's point of view. And everything he does is god-like: What do you say about Cruncher? Nothing. You make it seem like Cruncher is some brainless overmind playing an OP race, and Idra is our protagonist trying to overcome all odds to beat him. Here's the only good thing you say about Cruncher's play: Oh wait, but you can't just give him a good word for free! You then proceed to mention that he's BM. Not only does manner have nothing to do with objective game analysis, I can't believe you're pointing out Cruncher for being BM to Idra. IDRA. LOL. EDIT: Sorry, I realize I'm kinda derailing this thread a bit. I promise I'll try to add to the strategical discussion soon. The OP's actual analysis isn't tooooooo bad. I think it's easy to toss opinions and take sides on things like this because even I think it would have been a clearly different outcome should this have been a best of 7 or even post patch. | ||
|
Achaia
United States643 Posts
On March 30 2011 02:09 dragonsuper wrote: he drone drone drone, me win :D LOL that's funny. That was the MC interview in the GSL a while ago right? Probably one of my favorite interviews of all time. Props to the dude for trying to speak English because I know it's not his first language obviously and I don't even know enough Korean to do what he is but it was funny none the less :D | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
confusedcrib
United States1307 Posts
On April 01 2011 00:50 SupastaR wrote: Could we get some credentials? I'm not going to blindly read and trust someone's game analysis of 2 pros playing if their in platinum. I oftentimes find reading someone's analysis and then deciding their level of understanding of the game through that better than just their blind points and league or else you are just blindly trusting someone's ladder score rather than reading what they actually wrote and accessing it yourself. But I was 2700 masters random season 1, but honestly a high level bronze player, as long as he understood how the game works, could write a fine analysis. | ||
|
Nakas
United States148 Posts
On March 31 2011 08:12 Klive5ive wrote: If a Terran sits in his base and does nothing all game against a Zerg of course he loses. Then you go "Well, that Terran was stupid he didn't apply pressure". I think the premise is that there should be somewhat of a requirement for players to move out and contest the map. To be able to completely concede control of the map all game long, and just hole up in a corner of the map BGH style until they amass an invincible army just seems... wrong. | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
| ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
I suspect that people think the same applies to SC2, yet are unaware that the roles seem to have reversed a bit (T>P>Z>T). Like I said, I could be wrong, but indicators show a lot of zergs QQing over Toss, and a lot of toss QQing over Terran. (Terran of course have nothing to complain about because IMO there's still a bit that needs to be fixed about the terran race, so they choose arbitrary things like forcefields to cry over). Anywhoo, that's a bit of generalization, but I hope you know where I'm coming from on this. To me it just seems as though Protoss have a natural advantage over zerg styles of play. I'm not complaining, I play as toss. I just think it's an interesting thought... | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
SOOP
Bunny vs Solar
LiuLi Cup
Oliveira vs Reynor
Rogue vs GuMiho
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
OlimoLeague
OSC
ThermyCup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
