|
I know that these games are still full of emotion for fans of every player, but try and think of these games objectively. It's made even worse by the fact that Idra is extremely vocal about his feelings on the game, but this analysis is just that, an analysis, and shouldn't be taken as saying who deserved to win. I do focus more on Idra's play in this analysis, but this does not mean that I am not objective in my approach.
Game One: EG.Idra vs coL.CrunCher
+ Show Spoiler +Idra chose to open with a speedling expand, delaying his gas timing because he does not need the fastest possible zergling speed, an early indicator of low aggression. Cruncher meanwhile goes for a forge fast expand, this allows Idra to really drone up as he knows that no attack is coming for quite a while. This also allows Idra to get a faster third base than normal as well as delay his Lair and Roach warren. Idra is extremely active with his overlord scouting and thanks to that is able to see the void ray charging up on the back rocks. Idra got a very fast third and fourth queen which lets him quickly connect his bases with creep and he is able to defend air harass very easily with a couple of spore crawlers and queens. Idra is being extremely active with his creep spread and as per usual Idra makes some of the best drone vs. unit decisions of any player in the world. He gets the bare minimum hydralisks to defend and gets up his spire, that is beautifully timed out to finish at the same time as the first colossus, rest assured this timing is no coincidence. Idra does some more beautiful scouting with overlords and sees a fast third for Cruncher as well as the robo bay. Idra through his great decision making is up 22 drones over Cruncher at this point, but makes the interesting decision not to attempt to punish Cruncher's fast third. I think he remedies this well in the second game by scouting the same build and then really punishes the fact that Cruncher is trying to get away with too much tech too quickly. Nonetheless, Idra continues to macro up, grabbing a fourth base and making his second favorite unit in the game, drones.
I want to say that at this point it looks like Idra is far ahead, as he is ahead in drones, units, and upgrades, but he continues to sit with this while getting a fourth base up. A lot Idra's understanding with Cruncher's build is apparent by the next game where he punishes Cruncher's timings, but this game I think Idra is trying to play it safe. Idra continues his beautiful creep spread and overlord scouting while at this point it is obvious that Cruncher is trying to build up the big void ray colossus ball. As Idra begins to approach max with 1800 minerals in the bank, he knows he needs to try and make something happen before Cruncher gets too powerful as he tries to get an aggressive position on Cruncher's front. Idra goes for the attack on Cruncher's ramp but is very reluctant to sack everything and rebuild. Idra does some good damage and pulls back, using his extra food to remake more corrupters and roaches. Idra is maxed again and collecting money, he knows he needs to be aggressive while he is maxed and again pokes at the front and again pulls back, afraid to engage. Idra makes a good attempt to nydus warm in but doesn't do very much splitting of his army as he does in game two. Idra is still very hesitant with his max army, and now has over 4000 minerals in the bank. At this point Idra desperately needs more supply as protoss is approaching max on a more tech heavy army than Idra has. Idra chooses to engage the void rays with critical corrupters and loses his army in a disorganized way. Idra then reloads almost entirely on corrupters, the perfect decision. The corrupters are able to wipe the voids and half the collossus from the sky, but Idra's next reload isn't quite fast enough and his reinforcements die off to the left over gateway units and colossus of Cruncher's army, now in Idra's base and Idra is forced to gg, or rather, not gg.
Analysis:
+ Show Spoiler +Idra could have won the game at several points here, but when against the Void colossus style, you have to be extremely careful in the late game. First, Idra's decision making throughout the game between drones and units is near flawless, he is extremely good at getting his economy and army up. He also begins to look very powerful as he plays against this style similar to how a Zerg would against a meching terran, just expanding and droning everywhere. Eventually though Idra gets to a big 200/200 army but is unable to do anything with it. I'm sure after this game a lot of people think that this style of protoss is unbeatable in a macro game; however, this game actually demonstrates that it is possible to stop.
Cruncher had two weaknesses:
1st. It was extremely easy to tell what he was doing (giving your opponent plenty of time to prepare) and
2nd. The style is very immobile (something that Idra abuses in the second game).
Idra goes for a standard army composition against a non standard protoss ball. When Idra first engages he is able to free up food, and this engagement was even very messy. He then reloads on almost pure corrupter, and this high corrupter count is nearly enough to dominate everything in the air, the issue was that he didn't have enough time to reload enough to kill the stalkers. I think that Idra could have won by doing the following:
1. When sacking his initial 200/200 food army, he did it with drops and/or nydus' to abuse mobility and buy more time.
2. Hit with the pure corrupter reload as soon as possible, rather than defensively when toss is in your base line.
3. Reload after the corrupters with roach ling or anything to clean up the likely high stalker count that will be left over.
Idra's big mistake was sloppily losing his first army doing almost no damage and then because of that having the corrupter reload come too late when protoss was too far across the map. I don't think that Zerg having to plan three full engagements to beat this style is unfair because of how easy it is to tell that protoss is doing it.
What Cruncher did Right: Cruncher did have an interesting timing that is more evident in the second game, he gets an extremely fast colossus which was able to hold on against any potential hydra play that Idra would have done. Cruncher's goal, and I thought it was obvious that the goal of void ray colossus was to get up 3 bases and max out on Voids and Colossus, Cruncher did this well, holding any pokes that happened in his base. I'm sorry I didn't mention this earlier, but I thought that Void ray colossus and it's goals were extremely obvious and Cruncher executed the turtling style well.
TL;DR what to learn:
For Zerg: How to stop the void/colossus death ball through a macro style rather than a micro style as Idra does in the second game. Also if you just generally want to know Zerg timings Idra is THE player to watch.
For Toss: How to execute the void/colossus style.
Game Two: Idra vs. coL.Cruncher
+ Show Spoiler +Caution: Idra plays so well this game that your face might melt from the awesome. With that being said, Cruncher goes for the exact same build as last game and Idra completely demolishes him for it. Idra goes hatch first and Cruncher fakes a rush by placing a pylon inside Idra's base which Idra stops by pulling 4 drones. Once Cruncher's void ray makes its way across the map it becomes very apparent that Cruncher is doing the same build. Idra's reaction to a forge fast expand seems to be taking a fast third, and I think it may be safe to say that this is his standard reaction based on these two games. Idra sacks an overlord at 6:15 but is unable to get any good scouting information. Idra grabs his third and fourth gas much faster this game than the last and gets a hydralisk den without even a roach warren upon seeing the void ray. As he gets the hydra den he also starts ventral sacks - a sign of what to come. Idra is up 63 drones to CrunCher's 37, I actually had to pause the VOD and double check as that drone count is insane. Idra then begins Hydra range and OL speed and begins massing hydra's and making a fourth base. Idra moves his overlord's forward and prepares for a big hydra - ling drop in cruncher's main. Despite this looking like a game winning move, Cruncher's colossus manages to pop out in time to hold the drop, this aggression from Idra is happening right as Cruncher is trying to drone up his third. Idra continues dropping and abusing Cruncher's slow army. Idra continues the perfect balance of units, drones, and expansions, all while not allowing Cruncher to feel safe. Once Idra gets corrupters out and is able to isolate pockets of Cruncher's ball, he is able to harass Cruncher to death and force a gg.
Analysis:
+ Show Spoiler +This is the perfect example of how to defeat the colossus void ball in a micro oriented style. The ball requires just that - being a ball - to survive. Idra is able abuse a late colossus timing from Cruncher with a hydra drop - as hydralisks are supreme before colossus are out, and after the first drop is able to slowly destroy Cruncher's army and economy as his army cannot be everywhere at once, even on this map where the three bases are so close together. To apply this to the first game, imagine if Idra had done this multi pronged attack with his first max army, remade corrupters, then remade roach hydra to finish off the gateway units. Either way this game is a must watch for Idra's incredible play. Also it is very useful to see how Zerg can be aggressive, while still droning.
Game Three EG.Idra vs. coL.CrunCher
+ Show Spoiler +Idra opens pool , hatch, gas, opting to take the greedy expansion outside of his own base. Cruncher opts for a one gate expand, but gets a stalker instead of a sentry, possibly to fake a 4 gate or to deny scouting more easily. CrunCher get's up 4 more warp gates after expanding, putting him at 6 gates. CrunCher has a huge sentry count and Idra still is unable to completely scout what Cruncher is doing. Idra is playing somewhat safe, getting a few roaches and roach speed, but no burrow. Idra sees a small force of mainly sentries push out from Cruncher, and assumes that it is simply a fake attack. As the units approach Idra's front he calls what he perceives to be a bluff from Cruncher and begins 7 drones. Cruncher is able to dominate what few roaches Idra has out with excellent forcefields and take the game, with a friendly smiley face to boot.
Analysis:
+ Show Spoiler +I cringed as I saw the pylon finish and Idra make 7 drones. If this larvae had been roaches, the game would have been much closer. Without seeing the affects of this decision to make 7 drones, it is difficult to speculate what would have happened.
Here are links to my other Analysis:
GSTL finals http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=205969
IMLosira http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=204274
GSL finals http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=203120
Also: since everyone seems to think I'm super biased or something, I play random first before everyone claims I'm Zerg or something. I focus on the losing player, as the purpose of the review is to learn what went wrong and how to stop it. I freak out about how good Idra's play is because there is a lot to be learned from his timings, more so than there is from Cruncher. Cruncher can teach you how to do a build, because his style was "I force him to do x, or he dies" while Idra was doing the "He is doing this so I will react this way" Neither play is better than the other.
I'm personally just more excited when Idra makes a move these games because he is trying to defeat the other person's style, and this makes his decisions more exciting to watch, not better, just more exciting.
|
On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
I know that these games are still full of emotion for fans of every player, but try and think of these games objectively. It's made even worse by the fact that Idra is extremely vocal about his feelings on the game, but this analysis is just that, an analysis, and shouldn't be taken as saying who deserved to win.
Wait are you serious? I can't tell if you're trolling/being sarcastic but your game analysis is extremely biased and you made it painfully obvious that you thought Idra deserved to win.
|
Your analysis on game one is incorrect, Idra never had enough corruptors to dominate the air, not even enough to kill HALF of the void rays. Corruptors will never work against that many void rays. Would muta or hydra have worked better? Muta seems like the best option to me, but even once you get THAT many voids they don't far so well because by the time the mutas kill a few of them the rest are fully charged. Hydras work if you can actually get good positioning, not something a protoss of that level would ever let happen.
|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 29 2011 07:05 Treemonkeys wrote:
Your analysis on game one is incorrect, Idra never had enough corruptors to dominate the air, not even enough to kill HALF of the void rays. Corruptors will never work against that many void rays. Would muta or hydra have worked better? Muta seems like the best option to me, but even once you get THAT many voids they don't far so well because by the time the mutas kill a few of them the rest are fully charged. Hydras work if you can actually get good positioning, not something a protoss of that level would ever let happen.
The conclusion is sort of correct still though, had IdrA sacrificed his army to essentially just throw money at the protoss at the protoss' base to begin with, and used his far superior economy to whittle down the toss with massive numbers, it would have been different. First remax on corrupters, kill all colossi. Then remax on hydras, take out stalkers+void rays (hydras do quite well against both).
You need to give yourself room and time to make use of your economy, and that doesn't happen if you wait for the protoss to move out. You just need to accept that they'll have superior position at first, and throw money to take down the important units.
|
On March 29 2011 07:13 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:05 Treemonkeys wrote:
Your analysis on game one is incorrect, Idra never had enough corruptors to dominate the air, not even enough to kill HALF of the void rays. Corruptors will never work against that many void rays. Would muta or hydra have worked better? Muta seems like the best option to me, but even once you get THAT many voids they don't far so well because by the time the mutas kill a few of them the rest are fully charged. Hydras work if you can actually get good positioning, not something a protoss of that level would ever let happen. The conclusion is sort of correct still though, had IdrA sacrificed his army to essentially just throw money at the protoss at the protoss' base to begin with, and used his far superior economy to whittle down the toss with massive numbers, it would have been different. First remax on corrupters, kill all colossi. Then remax on hydras, take out stalkers+void rays (hydras do quite well against both). You need to give yourself room and time to make use of your economy, and that doesn't happen if you wait for the protoss to move out. You just need to accept that they'll have superior position at first, and throw money to take down the important units.
Hydras do well against both but not against both at the same time, not at all. Then add in even one reinforcing colossus or some FF and they won't cut it at all. Best option of course seems to be the mondragon style attack on three fronts at once...still not great on sharkuras though.
|
IdrA's dropplay in game 2 was simply phenomenal. Extreme amounts of apm and mirco to pull all that off. His new playstyle is simply awesome. I think zerg will be providing more crazy strats in the future.
CrunCher had an impressive opening with the void + phoenixes combo, nasty harrass that is..
|
On March 29 2011 07:13 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:05 Treemonkeys wrote:
Your analysis on game one is incorrect, Idra never had enough corruptors to dominate the air, not even enough to kill HALF of the void rays. Corruptors will never work against that many void rays. Would muta or hydra have worked better? Muta seems like the best option to me, but even once you get THAT many voids they don't far so well because by the time the mutas kill a few of them the rest are fully charged. Hydras work if you can actually get good positioning, not something a protoss of that level would ever let happen. The conclusion is sort of correct still though, had IdrA sacrificed his army to essentially just throw money at the protoss at the protoss' base to begin with, and used his far superior economy to whittle down the toss with massive numbers, it would have been different. First remax on corrupters, kill all colossi. Then remax on hydras, take out stalkers+void rays (hydras do quite well against both). You need to give yourself room and time to make use of your economy, and that doesn't happen if you wait for the protoss to move out. You just need to accept that they'll have superior position at first, and throw money to take down the important units.
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.
|
On March 29 2011 07:00 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
I know that these games are still full of emotion for fans of every player, but try and think of these games objectively. It's made even worse by the fact that Idra is extremely vocal about his feelings on the game, but this analysis is just that, an analysis, and shouldn't be taken as saying who deserved to win.
Wait are you serious? I can't tell if you're trolling/being sarcastic but your game analysis is extremely biased and you made it painfully obvious that you thought Idra deserved to win.
I never once said anything like that and would really appreciate you being more specific, otherwise it looks like a blue poster came into the thread and thought I had nothing good to say immediately. In fact, I over praised Idra because I was worried that if I didn't people might think I didn't give him enough credit. No player "deserved to win" Cruncher did a build, and Idra either stopped it or he didn't, Cruncher opted for the "force my opponent to do x or die" route while Idra opted for the "he's doing this so I'll do that" route. In fact, since you read this analysis and think I thought Idra deserved to win, I would conclude more so that that is your own bias coming into the analysis.
But if you're going to blindly flame me, especially as the first post, please be more specific.
|
I'm just curious... does anyone think Ultras would have been a pretty good choice in Game 1? He could have stomped force fields and done some nice damage to the stalkers/collosi. Hydras could have been used to clean up the void rays.
I know it's not that simple to just say "get this unit to kill this unit, and this unit to kill that unit" which is actually why I'm asking. The same goes for completely dismissing hydras because Cruncher had collosi, and dismissing broodlords/ultras because he had void rays. Battles are never that simple, but I just feel that had he used his corruptors to snipe the collosi instead of running them into all the voids that he could have used an Ultra Hydra army to do pretty well. Thoughts?
|
How many idra cruncher threads can we make? It was a good serious and there are many thoughts but now this taking up half the strategy forum.
|
I cannot believe that a zerg can win waiting that the protoss makes his imba deathball on 3 bases.
IdrA is complaining about late game protoss, but he leaves them arrived to this step ~~ except for game 2 where he won pretty quickly (as mondragon).
Imo, IdrA is good but he is too predictible and passive.
|
I'm not sure why you claim you're being objective and follow that up with a very biased write-up. Well written otherwise, though.
|
On March 29 2011 07:28 confusedcrib wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:00 Anihc wrote:On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
I know that these games are still full of emotion for fans of every player, but try and think of these games objectively. It's made even worse by the fact that Idra is extremely vocal about his feelings on the game, but this analysis is just that, an analysis, and shouldn't be taken as saying who deserved to win.
Wait are you serious? I can't tell if you're trolling/being sarcastic but your game analysis is extremely biased and you made it painfully obvious that you thought Idra deserved to win. I never once said anything like that and would really appreciate you being more specific, otherwise it looks like a blue poster came into the thread and thought I had nothing good to say immediately. In fact, I over praised Idra because I was worried that if I didn't people might think I didn't give him enough credit. No player "deserved to win" Cruncher did a build, and Idra either stopped it or he didn't, Cruncher opted for the "force my opponent to do x or die" route while Idra opted for the "he's doing this so I'll do that" route. In fact, since you read this analysis and think I thought Idra deserved to win, I would conclude more so that that is your own bias coming into the analysis. But if you're going to blindly flame me, especially as the first post, please be more specific.
Wow you are incredibly blind. First of all everything is written from Idra's point of view. And everything he does is god-like:
On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Idra makes some of the best drone vs. unit decisions of any player in the world.
beautifully timed out to finish at the same time as the first colossus, rest assured this timing is no coincidence.
Idra does some more beautiful scouting with overlords
Idra through his great decision making is up 22 drones over Cruncher at this point
Idra then reloads almost entirely on corrupters, the perfect decision.
Idra's decision making throughout the game between drones and units is near flawless
Idra plays so well this game that your face might melt from the awesome.
this game is a must watch for Idra's incredible play
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:
On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Cruncher is able to dominate what few roaches Idra has out with excellent forcefields and take the game, with a friendly, non sarcastic, non manner smiley face to boot.
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.
|
On March 29 2011 07:35 SaJa wrote:
I cannot believe that a zerg can win waiting that the protoss makes his imba deathball on 3 bases.
IdrA is complaining about late game protoss, but he leaves them arrived to this step ~~ except for game 2 where he won pretty quickly (as mondragon).
Imo, IdrA is good but he is too predictible and passive.
The problem is that aggression in ZvP against colossus is incredibly difficult on that map due to the amount of chokes.
|
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: Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Idra makes some of the best drone vs. unit decisions of any player in the world.
beautifully timed out to finish at the same time as the first colossus, rest assured this timing is no coincidence.
Idra does some more beautiful scouting with overlords
Idra through his great decision making is up 22 drones over Cruncher at this point
Idra then reloads almost entirely on corrupters, the perfect decision.
Idra's decision making throughout the game between drones and units is near flawless
Idra plays so well this game that your face might melt from the awesome.
this game is a must watch for Idra's incredible play
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: Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Cruncher is able to dominate what few roaches Idra has out with excellent forcefields and take the game, with a friendly, non sarcastic, non manner smiley face to boot.
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.
Thank you for being more specific, but I would also ask that you calm down. I thought I mentioned Idra's bm in the first two games but it turns out that I didn't, I'll go change that now. I edited my OP to explain more as well, but I always focus on the losing player, as that is where the analysis of how to win can happen. Anyone can look at Cruncher and go, that's a good build, and learn how to do it just by watching, but the real analysis is focused on Idra's loss and how to beat the void colossus style. If you want to learn how Cruncher won you can just watch it yourself, that doesn't need analysis. In the game Cruncher lost, I thought I made it clear that this was a build order type of loss where Cruncher just doesn't get colossus up fast, that an inherent risk in the build.
|
On March 29 2011 07:41 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:28 confusedcrib wrote:On March 29 2011 07:00 Anihc wrote:On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
I know that these games are still full of emotion for fans of every player, but try and think of these games objectively. It's made even worse by the fact that Idra is extremely vocal about his feelings on the game, but this analysis is just that, an analysis, and shouldn't be taken as saying who deserved to win.
Wait are you serious? I can't tell if you're trolling/being sarcastic but your game analysis is extremely biased and you made it painfully obvious that you thought Idra deserved to win. I never once said anything like that and would really appreciate you being more specific, otherwise it looks like a blue poster came into the thread and thought I had nothing good to say immediately. In fact, I over praised Idra because I was worried that if I didn't people might think I didn't give him enough credit. No player "deserved to win" Cruncher did a build, and Idra either stopped it or he didn't, Cruncher opted for the "force my opponent to do x or die" route while Idra opted for the "he's doing this so I'll do that" route. In fact, since you read this analysis and think I thought Idra deserved to win, I would conclude more so that that is your own bias coming into the analysis. But if you're going to blindly flame me, especially as the first post, please be more specific. Wow you are incredibly blind. First of all everything is written from Idra's point of view. And everything he does is god-like: Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Idra makes some of the best drone vs. unit decisions of any player in the world.
beautifully timed out to finish at the same time as the first colossus, rest assured this timing is no coincidence.
Idra does some more beautiful scouting with overlords
Idra through his great decision making is up 22 drones over Cruncher at this point
Idra then reloads almost entirely on corrupters, the perfect decision.
Idra's decision making throughout the game between drones and units is near flawless
Idra plays so well this game that your face might melt from the awesome.
this game is a must watch for Idra's incredible play
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: Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Cruncher is able to dominate what few roaches Idra has out with excellent forcefields and take the game, with a friendly, non sarcastic, non manner smiley face to boot.
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.
To be fair, cruncher didn't really do anything special or out there. I'll agree that the first game analysis deserves more crucher focus, however, because he didn't win with a build order and he didn't lose horribly.
|
I stopped after reading your Game 1 description. You say you will to some objective recap, but the only thing I saw was "Idra did X beautifully, Idra did Y perfectly, ...". You might have the best analysis out there and I am sorry for skipping that but you do not seem objective at all here, as I see other people have noticed as well 
|
In Game1 Idra could have easily won but he made some mistakes.
Why did he first max with roaches? It was obvious that Cruncher is going for a 200/200 Deathball from 3Base. Instead of getting only 10 Corrupters which cant do anything against that many voids he had to make like 30 Corrupters in the FIRST attack, not with the remaxing of his army. Then when was maxed he didnt really engage Cruncher but only poked a lttle bit at his front without doing damage and trying a very obvious Nydus Worm. This gave Cruncher enough time to max. He should just had sacrifice only his roaches so he can build much more corrupters.
When he remaxed with a lot of corrupters he should have focused the Colossi first instead of a-moving into the ball. After killing every Colossi he can send in his roach/hydra to help against the ground army and the remaining void rays. Idra a-moved and so the collossi killed his hydras in matter of seconds.
I think idra was in a great position to win this game but botched it by maxing with a wrong unitcompositon.
|
The reason he was able to win G2 and not G1 really just came down to the maps. G2 cruncher was more spread out and vulnerable to harass and this was not the case on Shak.
People criticizing idra for building drones in G3 are just ignorant though, he lost because there is no way to 100% know what the correct unit choice is there. He had to make an educated guess and he got it wrong which lost him the game (he probably thought it was a fake push-out to hinder idras eco while he went void-collo again).
|
If you're trying to do a serious analysis you might want to consider something as obvious as THE MAPS. The maps had a lot to do with why IdrA lost G1 and won G2.
|
2. Hit with the pure corrupter reload as soon as possible, rather than defensively when toss is in your base line.
what? the first encounter was near Protoss' base, then idra uilt his reload but protoss army was already at his doorstep when the corrupter reload came
how could he have gotten that so much sooner, I dont get that point at all.
I havent been playing SC2 in a while but what I generally dont get is why Z doesnt use infestors against this. I'm sure they die very fast to vrays and colossi but as long as you get off just a few fungals it should be worth it
|
On March 29 2011 07:50 dani` wrote:I stopped after reading your Game 1 description. You say you will to some objective recap, but the only thing I saw was "Idra did X beautifully, Idra did Y perfectly, ...". You might have the best analysis out there and I am sorry for skipping that but you do not seem objective at all here, as I see other people have noticed as well
Alright in game one analysis, I added a section all for cruncher, and at the bottom of my post I address these bias claims.
|
On March 29 2011 07:58 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +
2. Hit with the pure corrupter reload as soon as possible, rather than defensively when toss is in your base line.
what? the first encounter was near Protoss' base, then idra uilt his reload but protoss army was already at his doorstep when the corrupter reload came how could he have gotten that so much sooner, I dont get that point at all. I havent been playing SC2 in a while but what I generally dont get is why Z doesnt use infestors against this. I'm sure they die very fast to vrays and colossi but as long as you get off just a few fungals it should be worth it
Let me clarify: Idra has a max army, attacks, reloads on almost pure corrupter, attacks again, reloads on lings, and attacks again. My point was that the pure corrupter reload should have been more aggressive.
|
Idra lost Game3 because Idra really tries to squeeze out every drone he can. This playstyle is very vulnerable against allins. Idra could have hidden a zergling somewhere and check if Cruncher is really coming. He just could have waited 30 seconds, losing 2-3 Larvae by this and build the drones when he is sure Cruncher is not attacking. He could have built some Drones and some units when he knows Cruncher is coming to him and he is not sure if it is a fake or not. He could have built all Drones but throw down 1-2 SpineCrawlers which he can cancel if Cruncher is not coming.
Idra chose the 100% macro mode option and was punished for it.
|
On March 29 2011 08:00 confusedcrib wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:58 7mk wrote:
2. Hit with the pure corrupter reload as soon as possible, rather than defensively when toss is in your base line.
what? the first encounter was near Protoss' base, then idra uilt his reload but protoss army was already at his doorstep when the corrupter reload came how could he have gotten that so much sooner, I dont get that point at all. I havent been playing SC2 in a while but what I generally dont get is why Z doesnt use infestors against this. I'm sure they die very fast to vrays and colossi but as long as you get off just a few fungals it should be worth it Let me clarify: Idra has a max army, attacks, reloads on almost pure corrupter, attacks again, reloads on lings, and attacks again. My point was that the pure corrupter reload should have been more aggressive.
The problem was that the RELOAD was only corrupter. The first army should have been mostly corrupters, not the reload.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 29 2011 07:26 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:13 Whitewing wrote:On March 29 2011 07:05 Treemonkeys wrote:
Your analysis on game one is incorrect, Idra never had enough corruptors to dominate the air, not even enough to kill HALF of the void rays. Corruptors will never work against that many void rays. Would muta or hydra have worked better? Muta seems like the best option to me, but even once you get THAT many voids they don't far so well because by the time the mutas kill a few of them the rest are fully charged. Hydras work if you can actually get good positioning, not something a protoss of that level would ever let happen. The conclusion is sort of correct still though, had IdrA sacrificed his army to essentially just throw money at the protoss at the protoss' base to begin with, and used his far superior economy to whittle down the toss with massive numbers, it would have been different. First remax on corrupters, kill all colossi. Then remax on hydras, take out stalkers+void rays (hydras do quite well against both). You need to give yourself room and time to make use of your economy, and that doesn't happen if you wait for the protoss to move out. You just need to accept that they'll have superior position at first, and throw money to take down the important units. 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.
He wasn't focus firing down colossi, he had his corrupters attacking void rays a lot of the time. He also threw away a lot of corrupters against a fleet of void rays right before protoss moved out, instead of using them against the colossi, which is what they are for.
Also, Zergling/hydra is a better remax against stalker/void ray. Have a few corrupters go around to intercept colossi reinforcements.
The gist is, IdrA waited for Cruncher to push out. You should never do that when you're up 4 bases -_-.
|
I don't know how seriously I can look at a strategic analysis of a game with this level of bias towards Idra. Not to say that there is anything wrong with having a favorite player, but as far as analysis goes, I can't objectively read your summary with this much bias without thinking that you are making indirect comments about balance.
G1:
Idra didn't take advantage of his extra bases. If he had just traded armies (or killed some of the Protoss army), he had more than enough resources to macro up a new one. He didn't do this and he lost.
Cruncher macroed up a ball of death, and just pushed in and won. Simple as that.
G2:
Idra played well and thought outside of the box. He combined drops as well as splitting up his army to completely overwhelm Cruncher.
Cruncher, I'm guessing from lack of experience, couldn't keep up with every place at once.
G3:
Idra was greedy first with his outside base expansion, and second made 7 drones when he should have made roaches.
Cruncher kept Idra from scouting and knowing what was going on, and stream rolled him with a 6 gate.
|
On March 29 2011 07:23 Morphs wrote:
IdrA's dropplay in game 2 was simply phenomenal. Extreme amounts of apm and mirco to pull all that off. His new playstyle is simply awesome. I think zerg will be providing more crazy strats in the future.
CrunCher had an impressive opening with the void + phoenixes combo, nasty harrass that is..
I am not even convinced it takes THAT high of an APM to be aggressive. Look at Mondragon's games against similar openings. Solid strategy goes a long way and better players always find a way to at some point control the flow of the game. Idra did it in game 2 but in games 1 and 3 seemed totally lost.
|
On March 29 2011 07:48 confusedcrib wrote:
I always focus on the losing player, as that is where the analysis of how to win can happen.
False. Idra won game 2, and you still focused on him.
On March 29 2011 07:48 confusedcrib wrote:
Anyone can look at Cruncher and go, that's a good build, and learn how to do it just by watching, but the real analysis is focused on Idra's loss and how to beat the void colossus style. If you want to learn how Cruncher won you can just watch it yourself, that doesn't need analysis.
This is what bias is. You don't even realize any of the little things Cruncher is doing. And trust me, his builds were well thought out, and he practiced specifically against Idra's style. There is a ton of analysis that can be done on Cruncher's play, and to say that it doesn't need analysis just demonstrates your ignorance.
On March 29 2011 07:48 confusedcrib wrote:
In the game Cruncher lost, I thought I made it clear that this was a build order type of loss where Cruncher just doesn't get colossus up fast, that an inherent risk in the build.
Drop play is indeed very effective against Cruncher's style of play in game 2, but it is not a simple build order loss. There are things Cruncher could have done better to defend it. Also, what do you mean he didnt' get colossus up fast, he got a colossus out in time to defend the drop.
Look, I have no problem with your actual analysis even before you made any changes to it, but you should take out your preface, because all your claims about being objective and how this is purely an analysis just isn't fair at all. It's really hard to take you seriously otherwise (especially since you don't even have any credentials).
|
"Idra does this and sees that cruncher does that, idra reacts in this way, idra does such and that."
Dude, it sounds like you analyse this from IdrA's stream, the only time you mention Crunch is when IdrA has vision of him.
It's not even the fact that you praise him a lot more, but that you only mention Crunch in the instances where IdrA has vision of him.
|
I don't know how seriously I can look at a strategic analysis of a game with this level of bias towards Idra. Not to say that there is anything wrong with having a favorite player, but as far as analysis goes, I can't objectively read your summary with this much bias without thinking that you are making indirect comments about balance.
G1:
Idra didn't take advantage of his extra bases. If he had just traded armies (or killed some of the Protoss army), he had more than enough resources to macro up a new one. He didn't do this and he lost.
Cruncher macroed up a ball of death, and just pushed in and won. Simple as that.
G2:
Idra played well and thought outside of the box. He combined drops as well as splitting up his army to completely overwhelm Cruncher.
Cruncher, I'm guessing from lack of experience, couldn't keep up with every place at once.
G3:
Idra was greedy first with his outside base expansion, and second made 7 drones when he should have made roaches.
Cruncher kept Idra from scouting and knowing what was going on, and stream rolled him with a 6 gate.
TBH your "analysis" is even more "making indirect comments about balance".
It reads like:
Game 1
IdrA was ahead unit/upgrade/econwise (which is fact) and had not enough of unit type X (read: corruptors) in the first engagement.
Cruncher bunkered up, got 200/200 and a-moved.... hard to make a mistake here
Game 2
It took IdrA an enormous amount of APM and multitasking to stop Cruncher from bunkering up, getting to 200/200 and a-move
Game 3
IdrA was as greedy as Cruncher, but Cruncher doesnt have to scout and denied IdrAs Scout, game over.
Crunchers "style" is not hard to pull off in ladder. Maybe you can lern a few timings from here or how easy it is to deny scouting and then just roflstomp the zerg.
IdrAs game 2 style which was "outside the box" is a "little bit" harder to pull of than bunker, wait for 200/200 -> gg
|
On March 29 2011 08:07 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't know how seriously I can look at a strategic analysis of a game with this level of bias towards Idra. Not to say that there is anything wrong with having a favorite player, but as far as analysis goes, I can't objectively read your summary with this much bias without thinking that you are making indirect comments about balance.
G1:
Idra didn't take advantage of his extra bases. If he had just traded armies (or killed some of the Protoss army), he had more than enough resources to macro up a new one. He didn't do this and he lost.
What do you think he was trying to do? He lost his entire army and remaxed. The issue was that the remax doesn't happen quick enough, the first army didn't kill enough, and the second army isn't strong enough to stop the ball. When people complain about dealing with the deathball, the issue is that you can't effectively trade units once the deathball is mature.
Furthermore, you can't mine faster than 3 saturated mining bases without investing too much of your supply into workers. Any more bases than that doesn't help your overall income, but it does allow you mine gas faster.
So that analysis is clueless and totally useless.
G2:
Idra played well and thought outside of the box. He combined drops as well as splitting up his army to completely overwhelm Cruncher.
Cruncher, I'm guessing from lack of experience, couldn't keep up with every place at once.
Hydra drop timing is quite strong against Protoss when they've expanded. This is the time zerg is the strongest compared to Protoss. I
G3:
Idra was greedy first with his outside base expansion, and second made 7 drones when he should have made roaches.
Cruncher kept Idra from scouting and knowing what was going on, and stream rolled him with a 6 gate.
People see the 7 drones Idra made and don't understand why he made it. One big issue is that Idra was preparing a bit for a 4-gate, early on. It's not possible to defend against a well-executed 4-gate without cutting into economy quite a bit. However Cruncher didn't 4-gate idra, so that left him with an econ lead over idra. Instead, he expands.
Idra has two choices when the units move out. If it's a 6-gate all-in, he should do well to pump out as many units as possible. However, since his econ isn't that great, a successful defense isn't going to win him the game, even though 6-gate is considered all-in.
If it's not a 6-gate all-in, then making a lot of units put idra into an all-in. As in, he'll have to wipe out a mineral line or destroy an expansion in order to get back. That's quite hard to do against 2-base toss after a certain timing window.
So against non 6-gate, idra would want to macro up.
I think people give analysis that is a bit focused on the wrong aspect. People are looking at game 3 and looking for decisions that will let you not die. Not dying, however, is not the same as winning. Econ-ing up offers a good chance for Idra to win. Cranking out a ton of units has a possibility of working if you get a favorable battle against protoss, but it is quite all-in, and depends heavily on your opponent being able to defend it or not. So from idra's perspective, making the drones had a better chance of winning than pumping roaches.
|
On March 29 2011 08:22 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:48 confusedcrib wrote:
I always focus on the losing player, as that is where the analysis of how to win can happen.
False. Idra won game 2, and you still focused on him. Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:48 confusedcrib wrote:
Anyone can look at Cruncher and go, that's a good build, and learn how to do it just by watching, but the real analysis is focused on Idra's loss and how to beat the void colossus style. If you want to learn how Cruncher won you can just watch it yourself, that doesn't need analysis.
This is what bias is. You don't even realize any of the little things Cruncher is doing. And trust me, his builds were well thought out, and he practiced specifically against Idra's style. There is a ton of analysis that can be done on Cruncher's play, and to say that it doesn't need analysis just demonstrates your ignorance. Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:48 confusedcrib wrote:
In the game Cruncher lost, I thought I made it clear that this was a build order type of loss where Cruncher just doesn't get colossus up fast, that an inherent risk in the build. Drop play is indeed very effective against Cruncher's style of play in game 2, but it is not a simple build order loss. There are things Cruncher could have done better to defend it. Also, what do you mean he didnt' get colossus up fast, he got a colossus out in time to defend the drop. Look, I have no problem with your actual analysis even before you made any changes to it, but you should take out your preface, because all your claims about being objective and how this is purely an analysis just isn't fair at all. It's really hard to take you seriously otherwise (especially since you don't even have any credentials).
I think we are mis-communicating our ideas of bias. My idea of bias is when I make excuses for one player or complain about balance, but I think for you it might be simply analyzing one player more than another. I don't really know what is wrong about focusing on one player more than another, we are just mis-communicating on our ideas of bias. I can focus on one player but still be objective I think. I'm really getting tired of your unnecessary comments that try and derail me, if I type up multiple 2000+ word analysis, I obviously care about this game and would like to improve my analysis as much as possible, and I think I deserve a little respect for that. In the future I will focus more on both players, but you have to realize that this requires even more time and effort, but if people think that it is worth it than I will do it.
|
The strange thing is that confusedcrib was bashing Idra (and zergs in general) in his thread about FF a week ago. Now he is firmly in the zerg point of view.
I still think Mutas are better option against VR/Colo, but Shakuras (old one, at least) doesn't really help. The map is NOT good for zerg against P.
The last game, though, I think it was a little bit of poor decision by Idra, but then, ForceFields shouldn't make units not able to attack, this is a bug and should be fixed. If the roaches could attack, even though they were forcefielded, I think they would have taken 1 or 2 extra sentries, and it could change the outcome of the game drastically.
EDIT: TO be fair, though, Confusedcrib seems a little LESS partial then before. And his analysis is somewhat better, though there are many who are better than him.
|
This thread is quite interesting and the posts by Anihc give a completely different depth to it.
For some reason people consider IdrA to be a hero, a representative of what a top-class player is made of, which in my opinion has nothing to do with reality.
He only has 2 achievements to back up that reputation (1place MLG, 2nd IEM) and those were quite some time ago.
His style hasn't evolved at all and no, having good creep spread in a macro game with 0 battles doesn't mean you're evolving.
This thread is trying to analyze something that is not worth analyzing in the first place. IdrA played extremely passive in G1 and made too many drones in G3 and inevitably lost to Cruncher who player better.
Cruncher played a solid game but that doesn't seem to matter, we are all trying to figure out how did this huge upset happen. It's not an upset, IdrA is overrated and can't keep up anymore with an evolving game.
And those are the facts talking, not me. He is plagued by "silly" losses, games that he falls apart, but no-one seems to notice them, they are all an "upset" or a "bad day" or "imbalance" etc.
This thread will lead nowhere but to subtle conclusions that P is proken while obscuring IdrA's poor play once again.
And by the way I'm not an IdrA hater, I've been following his game since early beta and learned a lot by his style. It's just that his performance has been poor for so long (since the losses during GSL2) yet everyone treats him like the indestructible god of what was 1 year ago.
Edit: Syntax, grammar, spelling fail
|
@OP: I think your analysis is, while not perfect, pretty much one of the better ones I read thus far on these forums.
What I dont understand, is why some other posters (and blue ones at that feel the need to talk down to people taking a huge effort like that.
If you see things differantly, please be so kind to let us hear your wisdom. If you dont, then keep quiet. But whatever your feelings are, why would you try and take down the OP's effort? Especially without even trying to state what part of the analysis they see differantly and without any reason seemingly other than to talk down to the OP and let him look like a noob?
Seriously, if that is your idea of posting here to help the community, I hope you refrain from posting here in the future, no matter how blue your post may be. Arrogant attitude does not need to fill every thread on tl.
|
On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Cruncher is able to dominate what few roaches Idra has out with excellent forcefields and take the game, with a friendly, non sarcastic, non manner smiley face to boot.
wait are you serious? you think cruncher giving idra a smiley face after beating him 2-1, is BM after idra told the world he was preparing for cruncher as if it was a "walkover" not saying "glhf" in either game2 or game3, and not gging in all 3 games?
idra fanboys are some of the most unobjective people i've ever seen.
|
On March 29 2011 08:40 Jotoco wrote:
The strange thing is that confusedcrib was bashing Idra (and zergs in general) in his thread about FF a week ago. Now he is firmly in the zerg point of view.
I still think Mutas are better option against VR/Colo, but Shakuras (old one, at least) doesn't really help. The map is NOT good for zerg against P.
The last game, though, I think it was a little bit of poor decision by Idra, but then, ForceFields shouldn't make units not able to attack, this is a bug and should be fixed. If the roaches could attack, even though they were forcefielded, I think they would have taken 1 or 2 extra sentries, and it could change the outcome of the game drastically.
EDIT: TO be fair, though, Confusedcrib seems a little LESS partial then before. And his analysis is somewhat better, though there are many who are better than him.
i agree pretty much even when people say shakuras is a zerg map but i seriously dont see why as protoss are able to get their fastest possible expansion strat out there and since the rocks are gone you cant even rush anymore; on other maps protoss at least needs sentries but here a simple forge expand can be done while delaying the zerg expo - on which other map protoss can do that?i dont remind ever loosing a game against forge expands on any other map
though i dont know how many times idra must have to loose the same way until he might start to change his strategies
|
On March 29 2011 08:57 kasumimi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This thread is quite interesting and the posts by Anihc give a completely different depth to it.
For some reason people consider IdrA to be a hero, a representative of what a top-class player is made of, which in my opinion has nothing to do with reality.
He only has 2 achievements to back up that reputation (1place MLG, 2nd IEM) and those were quite some time ago.
His style hasn't evolved at all and no, having good creep spread in a macro game with 0 battles doesn't mean you're evolving.
This thread is trying to analyze something that is not worth analyzing in the first place. IdrA played extremely passive in G1 and made too many drones in G3 and inevitably lost to Cruncher who player better.
Cruncher played a solid game but that doesn't seem to matter, we are all trying to figure out how did this huge upset happen. It's not an upset, IdrA is overrated and can't keep up anymore with an evolving game.
And those are the facts talking, not me. He is plagued by "silly" losses, games that he falls apart, but no-one seems to notice them, they are all an "upset" or a "bad day" or "imbalance" etc.
This thread will lead nowhere but to subtle conclusions that P is proken while obscuring IdrA's poor play once again.
And by the way I'm not an IdrA hater, I've been following his game since early beta and learned a lot by his style. It's just that his performance has been poor for so long (since he losses during GSL2) yet everyone treats him like the indestructible god of what was 1 year ago.
Edit: Syntax, grammar, spelling fail
I'm by no means a pro level player (heck, I'm not even a diamond level player yet) but I feel I must agree with pretty much everything you've said. I'll be honest, I am quite a bit biased against IdrA simply because he is sooooooooo predictable and is frequently bad mannered. People often need to make a point about when he is being good mannered (and gee... those games are often where he is winning). But I digress.
Again, I feel that he is just way too predictable and it amazes me that the other pro players don't try and punish this more. IdrA is obviously a very good player with excellent macro and he makes some very good decisions, but he is one dimensional. He will never be like TLO because he is super predictable and goes for the exact same strategy over and over and over again. I feel like this is holding him back as a player, since I've seen all too often where he gets rolled by an "odd timing attack" as some people have put it. I bet you that those "odd timing attacks" were a decision made by these top level players because they go "Hey... This is IdrA, he is droning up right now and won't expect this."
As for the bias in this analysis... I don't think it was so much of a literal bias like that of an IdrA fanboy, but more that I never actually knew what was going on with Cruncher. It's easy to call it the Protoss Deathball... But often each Deathball is tailored for what it will be fighting. I understand that IdrA was the reactionary player and most of the focus will be on his decisions as Cruncher was going strategy A and IdrA had to choose how do deal with it... But that being said, it really did feel like I was watching a replay from IdrA's first person cam. An analysis of the game as a whole should try and encompass both players a little more instead of simply focusing on just one.
Again, I will totally admit that I really don't like IdrA. I think he is way too cocky (regardless of what tournaments he has/hasn't won). If he was truly dedicated to E-Sports he would shape up his attitude, because yes you will find the trash talkers and the brawlers in professional sports... But more often than not the players on each team will treat eachother with respect because they realize "Hey, it took a lot of work and dedication for you to get here to play with me." and that usually gives a mutual respect. I personally don't like that IdrA will be involved with the NASL. He's a great player yes, but if the idea of the NASL is to really get E-Sports started in North America, I'm not sure using IdrA as your poster boy is a good move. I'm honestly less inclined to watch it just because I'll be seeing IdrA play more often and I'll have to watch his obnoxious BM/flaming/whining about "imbalance".
I've definitely wandered off topic here and my apologies. Again, I'll say it flat out that I really don't like IdrA, so I am definitely very biased in this post and if you don't agree with me, it's all good because we can agree to disagree. But that being said, I'm super glad Cruncher won. Especially because he's a Protoss. Props Cruncher.
|
Again, I apologize for derailing the thread but the OP's claims of objective analysis are absolutely ridiculous and I felt the need to call him out on that. And yes I see those small changes you're making to the OP, but they're only making it worse.
But enough of that, here are my thoughts about the analysis:
Game 1
+ Show Spoiler +
- I have to disagree with you here that Idra could have won at several points of the game. Cruncher played it very safe, and knew that this was a good map to get 3 easy defendable bases with. You mentioned the fast colossus which is 1 element of it, but there are many more - for example, the fast stargate is great because the quick void allows for defense against 2 base roach attacks, while the following phoenixes allows for easy scouting and defense against the possibility of mutas. The intent of the stargate was not actually harass (harass is just a bonus), but mainly just for defense and superb scouting so he knows it's safe to continue on with his 3 base plan.
- I also don't necessarily agree with the statement that Cruncher plays an "immobile" style. Having a colossus ball is standard, so you might as well say that Zerg is more mobile than Protoss in general. It's not really a downside to this particular build. The only things that are more mobile than that are blink stalkers or heavy air play, both of which are not very common.
- I do agree with you that Idra did a superb job early-mid game in macroing, creep spreading, and scouting. He was able to enter the late game with a clear advantage. However, you should note that Idra having many more drones over Cruncher is not just because Idra's macro is good - Cruncher actually stopped making probes to save supply for more army. Gas was the limiting factor in his 3 base build, so additional probes were useless (and actually detrimental).
- You're completely right in that Idra should have full on engaged with his 200/200 army as soon as he got it, and then remaxed on mostly corruptor (and follow it with roach and other ground after colossus and corruptor are dead). Idra kinda wavered a bit with indecision and not knowing where to attack, slowly losing his advantage, and then threw it all away with the poor decision to attack pure void ray with pure corrupter.
Game 2
+ Show Spoiler +
- A mid-game hydra drop is indeed the counter to Cruncher's build, and Idra executed it flawlessly. Knowing that Cruncher was going to repeat his strategy from game 1, Idra went pure drones for the first half of the game allowing him to have that lopsided supply advantage over Cruncher, who actually IMO played it too safe (early on he cut probes to get up cannon/nexus, he also sent a 2nd probe to scout for 6 pool - lol). You have the right idea when you say that he abused the late colossus timing, but he got it out pretty fast considering he got out a stargate before the colossus. In fact, he got it out at the perfect timing - in time to defend against the drop. Unfortunately, Idra just had way too much and was able to deal a lot of damage with the first drop.
- The game was over as soon as Cruncher pulled his probes to defend against the first drop and lost all of his probes in his main. This was a questionable decision, as he may have been able to hold off the drop without pulling probes. But even if he did, Idra still made the really smart move of dropping 4 hydras behind the mineral line of the main while the main drop was going on. Cruncher was going to lose probes no matter what.
- Idra shows off his strength in multitasking as he's able to drop everywhere while still keeping up his macro and even getting a 4th base. But what you say about "imagine if Idra had done this multi pronged attack with his maxed army in game 1" doesn't make sense. With a mid-game drop, Idra is able to abuse the fact that Cruncher has spent all his money on tech and cannons at this front, and had very few units. If he waited for 200/200, drops would not have worked because then he would have had to deal with an actual protoss ball. He won because of excellent timing, and he knew this was when the Protoss was at its weakest. Also what you say about Zerg droning and still being aggressive doesn't make sense either, because those 2 things did not happen at the same time. Idra droned up, then switched completely to being aggressive.
Game 3
+ Show Spoiler +
- Not much to analyze here, and you're right that Idra making those 7 drones was pretty much his downfall. Although he could have done things to minimize the effects of forcefields such as baiting with smaller groups of units, engaging farther away from his base, and/or spreading out his units.
- It might be interesting to note the mind games here. Idra comes into this matchup expecting 2 4 gates from Cruncher. What he got instead was 2 macro games. Now it's game 3, and Idra must decide whether Cruncher will do what he's best at (or at least what Idra thinks he's best at), which is all-ining, or if he'll try macro again. Idra again opts to be greedy and that leads to his downfall like it has many many times in the past.
|
On March 29 2011 09:19 ntrz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Cruncher is able to dominate what few roaches Idra has out with excellent forcefields and take the game, with a friendly, non sarcastic, non manner smiley face to boot. wait are you serious? you think cruncher giving idra a smiley face after beating him 2-1, is BM after idra told the world he was preparing for cruncher as if it was a "walkover" not saying "glhf" in either game2 or game3, and not gging in all 3 games? idra fanboys are some of the most unobjective people i've ever seen.
I mention Idra's lack of a gg in my first game analysis, I don't understand why this is the issue everyone focuses on rather than the analysis itself
|
I thought you did fine for what your goal was, focusing on the losing player's perspective. Some people seem to be favoring Cruncher and offended that you'd ever analyze the play of a losing player who plays zerg and BMs and then proceed to point out the things he did right.
|
I think what is not given enough credit for idra's game two is his transition into roach corrupter while he kept expanding and doing some limited droning.
|
Now, I don't want to belittle Cruncher as I don't know him too much as a player much more than what I've seen during the game, and you can only be disappointed by the outcome of the series. It might be the Zerg bias, but by all means, I'm not a fan of Idra.
To me, it doesn't really matter that he lacked manners against his opponent. It's true, he might need to revise his strategy economically, but it's disappointing to see a player that puts this amount of dedication lose against a semi professional (I can only assume he is.). Those things weren't happening in Brood War. I don't you know if it's because the Professional aren't getting what the game is all about just yet, or that they just don't see all of the possibilities, but things need to be worked out.
Losing both IdrA and Nestea is also rather tragic on Zerg point of view.
|
On March 29 2011 12:53 confusedcrib wrote:
I think what is not given enough credit for idra's game two is his transition into roach corrupter while he kept expanding and doing some limited droning.
He won after the first drop killed all of Cruncher's probes in his main. There is nothing special about transitioning to corruptors and roaches to counter colossus.
|
On March 29 2011 07:00 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
I know that these games are still full of emotion for fans of every player, but try and think of these games objectively. It's made even worse by the fact that Idra is extremely vocal about his feelings on the game, but this analysis is just that, an analysis, and shouldn't be taken as saying who deserved to win.
Wait are you serious? I can't tell if you're trolling/being sarcastic but your game analysis is extremely biased and you made it painfully obvious that you thought Idra deserved to win.
Pretty much, all I read in every sentence was "i love idra i love idra I love idra i love idra"
This is about as far from an objective analysis as you can get.
|
You know what I like.
I like that of all the Zerg who played in the TSL's round of 32, the two that got through was the baneling buster and the macro zerg who built lots of spines.
Sorry Idra.
|
If only Idra learned the composition that crushes Void-Ray Colossus, he would have annihilated this guy.
It is Muck's build, but everybody ignored it.
|
On March 29 2011 08:24 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
"Idra does this and sees that cruncher does that, idra reacts in this way, idra does such and that."
Dude, it sounds like you analyse this from IdrA's stream, the only time you mention Crunch is when IdrA has vision of him.
It's not even the fact that you praise him a lot more, but that you only mention Crunch in the instances where IdrA has vision of him.
The builds Cruncher did are pretty linear and you don't need to react to a lot of things while doing them (Build your ball on a set number of base and push at a set timing). It is almost pointless to have the view of Cruncher, except maybe for some unit placement decisions.
|
On March 29 2011 10:09 CrAzEdMiKe wrote:
IdrA is obviously a very good player with excellent macro and he makes some very good decisions, but he is one dimensional. He will never be like TLO because he is super predictable and goes for the exact same strategy over and over and over again.
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.
I bet you that those "odd timing attacks" were a decision made by these top level players because they go "Hey... This is IdrA, he is droning up right now and won't expect this."
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.
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)
But often each Deathball is tailored for what it will be fighting. I understand that IdrA was the reactionary player and most of the focus will be on his decisions as Cruncher was going strategy A and IdrA had to choose how do deal with it.
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.
I've definitely wandered off topic here and my apologies. Again, I'll say it flat out that I really don't like IdrA, so I am definitely very biased in this post and if you don't agree with me, it's all good because we can agree to disagree. But that being said, I'm super glad Cruncher won. Especially because he's a Protoss. Props 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.
|
On March 29 2011 22:46 Psychlone wrote:
If only Idra learned the composition that crushes Void-Ray Colossus, he would have annihilated this guy.
It is Muck's build, but everybody ignored it.
The hydra drop works nicely too, it was demonstrated by many players already, and its exactly what IdrA did in game 2.
|
IdrA played badly. It's as simple as that, no excuses.
He makes planning strategies against him incredibly easy by always doing the exact same thing. Every game he hands his initiative straight to his opponent. Cruncher may as well have a maphack because he knows exactly what IdrA is doing every minute of every game.
JulyZerg WOULD NOT have lost that series. He knows how to beat lessers players. He gets in their face and breaks their strategies up, then if the game doesn't end early he wins anyway even if he's behind because his multi-tasking/macro is better.
The strong point of IdrA is super strong. His macro so absolutely unrivaled it's approaching genius. Game2 he double Crunchers supply within minutes. But SC2 is far more than just macro.
If IdrA wants to progress as a player he needs to cheese every game, every tournament for the next 6 months. Proper, calculated, well executed, all-in timings.
Roach rush, baneling bust, fast burrrow, fast drop, ling all-in, 6pool, 12 drone rush etc...
Only then can he be an opponent that people are scared of.
|
The reason Semi Pros didn't (often) beat Pros in BW was because of how just f-ing impossible that game is to play at a really high level. You could never do the protoss deathball because you have a limit of 12 units per unit group. The deathball works BECAUSE it's basically a 1 control group super unit. Sure you can do nifty things like pull back the colossus that are being focus fired or blink your stalkers under broodlords or onto the flank of some roaches but basically, box, a, click, win.
Imagine trying to deploy a deathball effectively if your stalkers had dragoon AI, if you had to individually select every high templar in order to storm or you'd end up storming 12 times in the same spot and if whenever your colossus fired, they sometimes decided to shoot at a mineral patch and their lasers just stuck there for a couple seconds before exploding uselessly doing nothing.
Basically, it just wouldn't be nearly as effective and it would take gosux2 micro to actually keep the whole thing balled up, rather than it simply being a function of the game's AI like it is now.
I'm sure this is the root of Idra's rage, but at the same time, he's not exploiting the weaknesses of that formation. The deathball is good because as a cohesive unit, every unit supports the other increasing the overall effectiveness of the whole. It's a big knuckley fist designed to drive right into the throat of the zerg and if the zerg takes it in the throat OF COURSE they're going to choke. That's what it's meant to do. The trick to stopping a big slow punch is to kick the guy in the balls before he has the chance to even throw it. The mobile army of the zerg should always be able to dictate the terms of the battle to the protoss, but Idra constantly engages in pitched battles in the middle, ones which the zerg lair units are horrible at fighting. Lair units work best in small numbers. 20 zerglings in your base is huge pain to deal with but 100 zerglings in the open field is a barbecue. Idra had drop tech in game 1, why wasn't he using some of his super gosux2 apm to ferry zerglings into Cruncher's base to attack his pylons and gateways while he fought the deathball in the center? What good would those zerglings do in the main battle? They'd roast to the colossus before getting off a single nibble, but dropped into the production area of protoss they could cause insane destruction, making it impossible to reinforce the death ball.
Take that fist down one crotch at a time. That's the key. Protoss winds up, you knee him in the groin. He winds up a gain, you knee him in the groin again until he spends so much resources on crotch protection that he's no longer able to walk properly, then you just knock him over.
|
On March 29 2011 10:41 Anihc wrote:Game 3 + Show Spoiler +
- Not much to analyze here, and you're right that Idra making those 7 drones was pretty much his downfall. Although he could have done things to minimize the effects of forcefields such as baiting with smaller groups of units, engaging farther away from his base, and/or spreading out his units.
- It might be interesting to note the mind games here. Idra comes into this matchup expecting 2 4 gates from Cruncher. What he got instead was 2 macro games. Now it's game 3, and Idra must decide whether Cruncher will do what he's best at (or at least what Idra thinks he's best at), which is all-ining, or if he'll try macro again. Idra again opts to be greedy and that leads to his downfall like it has many many times in the past.
That isn't Idra; thats how zerg works at a fundamental level. You either macro or defend, but if you waver and do half and half you'll lose to everything. The problem is a lack of solid intel on what the protoss is doing, and that matchup is difficult because of the ambiguity. You can't call Idra "too greedy" when he is forced to pick drones or army without proper scouting. You can call him lazy with his scouting, but realistically its just super hard for zerg to scout at that 6-gate timing.
|
On March 29 2011 08:26 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +I don't know how seriously I can look at a strategic analysis of a game with this level of bias towards Idra. Not to say that there is anything wrong with having a favorite player, but as far as analysis goes, I can't objectively read your summary with this much bias without thinking that you are making indirect comments about balance.
G1:
Idra didn't take advantage of his extra bases. If he had just traded armies (or killed some of the Protoss army), he had more than enough resources to macro up a new one. He didn't do this and he lost.
Cruncher macroed up a ball of death, and just pushed in and won. Simple as that.
G2:
Idra played well and thought outside of the box. He combined drops as well as splitting up his army to completely overwhelm Cruncher.
Cruncher, I'm guessing from lack of experience, couldn't keep up with every place at once.
G3:
Idra was greedy first with his outside base expansion, and second made 7 drones when he should have made roaches.
Cruncher kept Idra from scouting and knowing what was going on, and stream rolled him with a 6 gate. TBH your "analysis" is even more "making indirect comments about balance". It reads like: Game 1 IdrA was ahead unit/upgrade/econwise (which is fact) and had not enough of unit type X (read: corruptors) in the first engagement. Cruncher bunkered up, got 200/200 and a-moved.... hard to make a mistake here Game 2 It took IdrA an enormous amount of APM and multitasking to stop Cruncher from bunkering up, getting to 200/200 and a-move Game 3 IdrA was as greedy as Cruncher, but Cruncher doesnt have to scout and denied IdrAs Scout, game over. Crunchers "style" is not hard to pull off in ladder. Maybe you can lern a few timings from here or how easy it is to deny scouting and then just roflstomp the zerg. IdrAs game 2 style which was "outside the box" is a "little bit" harder to pull of than bunker, wait for 200/200 -> gg
That's not at all what I got from his post, don't know what you're reading lol. Didn't see anything about unit composition or APM or anything. Your post seems like the indirect comments about balance.
G1 you complain that Protoss's 200/200 army is the strongest. Which is true, but it's also the least mobile and can't be remaxed as quickly as Zerg's. It does have drawbacks. Idra could have exploited timings and used his 7 bases and huge amounts of gas to just throw units at Cruncher before his army got to a maxed point because he had the econ + hatches to remake units quickly.
G2 you complain that Idra needed high APM to stop Cruncher from turtling up and winning. This seems like the most counterproductive thing to the longevity/health of this game. "It's unfair, I have to have high APM to drop and cripple my opponent effectively!" When has that ever been a legitimate complaint?
G3 You complain that Cruncher didn't need to scout (despite his hallucinated phoenix) when he's going kind of all-in and say Idra was just as greedy as him when he decided to make 7 roaches. If it was a fake push, then yes Idra would have wasted his potential larvae on drones, but the unit composition he saw seemed too stalker heavy to be fake. Hard to say if it was a bad decision but it certainly was the wrong one.
On March 29 2011 23:36 Unwardil wrote:
Take that fist down one crotch at a time. That's the key. Protoss winds up, you knee him in the groin. He winds up again, you knee him in the groin again until he spends so much resources on crotch protection that he's no longer able to walk properly, then you just knock him over.
Best analogy lol.
|
On March 29 2011 10:41 Anihc wrote:Game 3 + Show Spoiler +
- Not much to analyze here, and you're right that Idra making those 7 drones was pretty much his downfall. Although he could have done things to minimize the effects of forcefields such as baiting with smaller groups of units, engaging farther away from his base, and/or spreading out his units.
- It might be interesting to note the mind games here. Idra comes into this matchup expecting 2 4 gates from Cruncher. What he got instead was 2 macro games. Now it's game 3, and Idra must decide whether Cruncher will do what he's best at (or at least what Idra thinks he's best at), which is all-ining, or if he'll try macro again. Idra again opts to be greedy and that leads to his downfall like it has many many times in the past.
Regarding the 3rd game.
Cruncher says he was going for the same build (colossus-voidray) but when his hallucinated phoenix scouted no units he just decided to go kill him. Idra probably underestimating Cruncher, didn't think he would react to scouting information and play exactly like games 1-2 (ironically he himself didn't scout/react properly to Crunchers push and droned). Idra assuming the opponent will do x as he so often does.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On March 29 2011 08:35 Frozenserpent wrote:
People see the 7 drones Idra made and don't understand why he made it. One big issue is that Idra was preparing a bit for a 4-gate, early on. It's not possible to defend against a well-executed 4-gate without cutting into economy quite a bit. However Cruncher didn't 4-gate idra, so that left him with an econ lead over idra. Instead, he expands.
Idra has two choices when the units move out. If it's a 6-gate all-in, he should do well to pump out as many units as possible. However, since his econ isn't that great, a successful defense isn't going to win him the game, even though 6-gate is considered all-in.
If it's not a 6-gate all-in, then making a lot of units put idra into an all-in. As in, he'll have to wipe out a mineral line or destroy an expansion in order to get back. That's quite hard to do against 2-base toss after a certain timing window.
So against non 6-gate, idra would want to macro up.
I think people give analysis that is a bit focused on the wrong aspect. People are looking at game 3 and looking for decisions that will let you not die. Not dying, however, is not the same as winning. Econ-ing up offers a good chance for Idra to win. Cranking out a ton of units has a possibility of working if you get a favorable battle against protoss, but it is quite all-in, and depends heavily on your opponent being able to defend it or not. So from idra's perspective, making the drones had a better chance of winning than pumping roaches.
Last time I heard, "not losing at once" is a fairly important prerequisite of winning later on.
|
On March 29 2011 23:45 marvellosity wrote:
Last time I heard, "not losing at once" is a fairly important prerequisite of winning later on.
True but it is also quite possible to do something in order to 'not die now' and be pretty sure to 'die later'. Being a canadian, I'll make a hockey analogy:
You are in the last minute of the game, losing 3-2, faceoff at center - you can take out the goaltender now (and have a good chance of dieing now by being scored on) or keep the goaltender in and hope you can score 5 on 5 (but your chances are lower to equal the score since it is 5 on 5) and you die later when the game ends.
As I said earlier - what did IdrA see? zealot/sentry. 90-95% of the time that is a P fake probe.
|
I agree emphatically with everything anihc has said in this thread =D
|
imagine if cruncher had moved out 3 seconds later, so idra wouldnt of "made a mistake". idra would of lost to a push he couldnt stop reasonably, i dont think the game should work like that.
|
With regards to the deathball in game 1, I think what makes it frustrating is that while things like mult-drop attacks, with excellent timing and distraction play can work, it's something that is extremely difficult and isn't exactly composition dependent. It's just simple RTS play to try to inflict huge damage with a tiny force on the economy, while diverting your opponent's attention elsewhere.
The other reason it's frustrating is zerg is is terribly equipped for this style. Hydras and roaches, amdist the enemy sim-city, with the worst (albeit cheapest and most plentiful after some expensive upgrades) dropships in the game, just aren't good units to inflict quick economic damage and escape.
Zerg with roach/hydra/overlord/corruptor just feels like a terrible version of MMM+viking. Comparing drop harass from Zerg against protoss to the Terran version makes me think Zerg is playing with entirely the wrong composition in this matchup, but I can't think of a better one. I do think that trying to play Zerg like a poor man's Terran is a recipie for disaster.
|
On March 29 2011 14:05 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 12:53 confusedcrib wrote:
I think what is not given enough credit for idra's game two is his transition into roach corrupter while he kept expanding and doing some limited droning. He won after the first drop killed all of Cruncher's probes in his main. There is nothing special about transitioning to corruptors and roaches to counter colossus.
In your analysis of my analysis you said that in game two Idra did not drone while attacking. between the hydra drop and the roach corrupter attack, Idra got another 10ish drones and mining his third. During the attack he grabs his fifth base. I was pointing out the fact that "he kept expanding and doing some limited droning" was special. Not the transition to roach corrupter. A lesser Zerg would have just pumped non stop units, but this was an example of how to manage your economy while doing big attacks. I feel like you only read the first parts of what I say  and a lone tear of loneliness '
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On March 29 2011 23:49 Onos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 23:45 marvellosity wrote:
Last time I heard, "not losing at once" is a fairly important prerequisite of winning later on.
True but it is also quite possible to do something in order to 'not die now' and be pretty sure to 'die later'. Being a canadian, I'll make a hockey analogy: You are in the last minute of the game, losing 3-2, faceoff at center - you can take out the goaltender now (and have a good chance of dieing now by being scored on) or keep the goaltender in and hope you can score 5 on 5 (but your chances are lower to equal the score since it is 5 on 5) and you die later when the game ends. As I said earlier - what did IdrA see? zealot/sentry. 90-95% of the time that is a P fake probe.
Ok, I enjoy taking on these analogies 
As it was fairly early in the game, I'd contend the score was 2-2 right before half-time (you do have half-time? :/).
So do you take off your goaltender temporarily/drone more (ok this might not be possible) and hope to go into the 2nd half 3-2 up? Or do you leave him on/build units and it stays 2-2 (push comes and you defend it equally) or maybe you go into the 2nd half 3-2 down (he was hard eco/teching).
The giant extra factor in the equation is if you take your goaltender off and they score then the referee ENDS THE GAME IMMEDIATELY in their favour. Risk/reward seems bad.
|
This match was a case study in what's wrong with ZvP in patch 1.2.
Obviously Idra made mistakes, no one is perfect at this game yet. But Idra made high-level mistakes, like not striking the perfect hydra/corrupter balance vs the deathball in G1, or not reading the protoss's intentions correctly in G3 based on his limited scouting information. His win in G2 was achieved with pretty darn impressive macro while simultaneously doing multi-pronged drop harass.
Cruncher, on the other hand, was making beginner mistakes that I would expect to see in diamond league. He had his entire army one hotkey, including his colossi. I'm sure this is part of the reason why his response to drops was so bad in G2. I've never seen a pro get so completely overwhelmed by a basic double-pronged attack before. Any good pro would have seen it the moment the blip appeared on the minimap and would have evacuated workers, but Cruncher often didn't even notice until his probes started dying, it's as if he doesn't even watch his minimap.
His wins, on the other hand, were just meh. I feel like Cruncher showed no ability to micro, no ability to macro, and no ability to multitask or do multi-pronged attacks. In the end, I feel like the wins were achieved via basic protoss builds and pushes that pretty much any diamond player with 50+ APM could do with similar effectiveness.
|
The problem with your example here ist that Idra was not on 2-2, but on 2-3
he had to decide either droning up, bringing him on 3-3 with the risk of dying instantly OR build units, getting further behind to 2-4 but stay in the game until it is over aka losing later on.
There is no "comeback" for Z.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
There's no reason that Idra would be 2-3 at that stage other than mistakes he already made.
Anyway, you still have more chance of winning 2-4 than immediate knockout.
|
this post has spawned some interesting strategy discussions. But I'm not sure if I've seen a more biased post claim to be neutral. Whether or not you are random, you were clearing pulling for idra. This is largely irrelevant but I just thought I'd post this as I got a good laugh cant wait to watch more games of idra's beautiful creep spread and beautiful timings
|
On March 30 2011 00:37 confusedcrib wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 14:05 Anihc wrote:On March 29 2011 12:53 confusedcrib wrote:
I think what is not given enough credit for idra's game two is his transition into roach corrupter while he kept expanding and doing some limited droning. He won after the first drop killed all of Cruncher's probes in his main. There is nothing special about transitioning to corruptors and roaches to counter colossus. In your analysis of my analysis you said that in game two Idra did not drone while attacking. between the hydra drop and the roach corrupter attack, Idra got another 10ish drones and mining his third. During the attack he grabs his fifth base. I was pointing out the fact that "he kept expanding and doing some limited droning" was special. Not the transition to roach corrupter. A lesser Zerg would have just pumped non stop units, but this was an example of how to manage your economy while doing big attacks. I feel like you only read the first parts of what I say and a lone tear of loneliness '
Then stop saying useless things. Regardless, it doesn't matter since IdrA already won then. A lesser Zerg would have just pumped non stop units and still easily won the game just the same.
Yes I know Idra has great macro and multitasking abilities, I mention that in my comments as well. But honestly it doesn't deserve any special mention, multitasking is required for any player and expanding/making drones behind launching an attack is very common. Idra did a great job of keeping the pressure up with multiple simultaneous drops at each end of Cruncher's base, but I did not see any evidence of Idra doing any sort of insane micro at multiple locations at once. Smart, solid play? Yes. Boxer-esque or Tushin-esque jaw-dropping play? No.
|
On March 30 2011 00:41 Nakas wrote:
This match was a case study in what's wrong with ZvP in patch 1.2.
Obviously Idra made mistakes, no one is perfect at this game yet. But Idra made high-level mistakes, like not striking the perfect hydra/corrupter balance vs the deathball in G1, or not reading the protoss's intentions correctly in G3 based on his limited scouting information. His win in G2 was achieved with pretty darn impressive macro while simultaneously doing multi-pronged drop harass.
Cruncher, on the other hand, was making beginner mistakes that I would expect to see in diamond league. He had his entire army one hotkey, including his colossi. I'm sure this is part of the reason why his response to drops was so bad in G2. I've never seen a pro get so completely overwhelmed by a basic double-pronged attack before. Any good pro would have seen it the moment the blip appeared on the minimap and would have evacuated workers, but Cruncher often didn't even notice until his probes started dying, it's as if he doesn't even watch his minimap.
His wins, on the other hand, were just meh. I feel like Cruncher showed no ability to micro, no ability to macro, and no ability to multitask or do multi-pronged attacks. In the end, I feel like the wins were achieved via basic protoss builds and pushes that pretty much any diamond player with 50+ APM could do with similar effectiveness.
I agree. Watching the whole army move as, literally, a ball was very disappointing. Cruncher is good, but somehow it does seem as though it was more a matter of the P units just being far, far superior than anything the Z could come up with.
I think the poster above me was right when he said Hydra/Roach/Corruptor is like a poor man's MM/Viking. It doesn't seem to work very well against the Protoss ball, and it's built around throwing more resources at the ball than the ball is worth--it hopes that production can win out in the end. I don't think that strategy can work, ultimately, as P players get better and mix more Voids into their army.
Granted, I'm just a Diamond level Random player, but those are my thoughts. I don't think Idra is the best Z player in the world, and I'm no fanboy of his, but it was distressing to see how relatively minor mistakes--misjudging the P's intentions, attacking *slightly* wrong--on his part meant he got crushed whereas the P player got live on 1 hotkey and still prove rather effective.
|
when a protoss gets 200 food with the right unit composition, it becomes nearly impossible to kill it. Blizzard admitted the problem, but did not fix it.
In the game on shakuras :
Some are saying IdrA did not have enough corruptors.
The equation is the following if you make too many corruptors :
Corruptors hit the void rays
Colossi kill the zerg ground army
remaining corruptors kill the colossi
zerg's ground army is gone (due to colossi, but also due to having too much corrupters)
There's no chance of killing 12-14 void rays without really alot of corruptors, and these last ones don't shoot ground anyway...
whether you like it or not, whether it's the subject here or not the protoss late game is still imbalanced and we're seeing it in alot of high level games.
|
On March 30 2011 00:41 Nakas wrote:
This match was a case study in what's wrong with ZvP in patch 1.2.
Obviously Idra made mistakes, no one is perfect at this game yet. But Idra made high-level mistakes, like not striking the perfect hydra/corrupter balance vs the deathball in G1, or not reading the protoss's intentions correctly in G3 based on his limited scouting information. His win in G2 was achieved with pretty darn impressive macro while simultaneously doing multi-pronged drop harass.
Cruncher, on the other hand, was making beginner mistakes that I would expect to see in diamond league. He had his entire army one hotkey, including his colossi. I'm sure this is part of the reason why his response to drops was so bad in G2. I've never seen a pro get so completely overwhelmed by a basic double-pronged attack before. Any good pro would have seen it the moment the blip appeared on the minimap and would have evacuated workers, but Cruncher often didn't even notice until his probes started dying, it's as if he doesn't even watch his minimap.
His wins, on the other hand, were just meh. I feel like Cruncher showed no ability to micro, no ability to macro, and no ability to multitask or do multi-pronged attacks. In the end, I feel like the wins were achieved via basic protoss builds and pushes that pretty much any diamond player with 50+ APM could do with similar effectiveness.
Idra made mistakes that Diamond / Low Master Z players make all the time, which is sit back camp and macro up hoping to overwhelm a 200/200 deathball, but allowing it to move into the center of the map.
Idra made a boatload of mistakes in G1 that could have easily won him the game :
1) Hydra drop even on Shakuras is very good especially the way Cruncher opened. Any Hydra drop in his main would have allowed Idra to do serious damage, if not outright win the game. Cruncher was spending all of his early gas on fast tech into VR/Colossus; he had almost no Gateway units. He only had 2 Colossus when a normal Hydra drop happens, so it would have been quite easy for Idra to win (or at least do BIG damage).
2) He allowed Cruncher to take an easy 3rd without any kind of punishment / pressure. Anyone who argues otherwise has honestly never played PvZ at a decent level, because Cruncher took that 3rd BEFORE Colossus were even out (before 11 minutes was when it first came up). This type of play would have gotten stomped by Nestea, July, or any other Z who knows how to play early to mid game aggression. Cruncher tailored his build SPECIFICALLY for Idra. It was painfully obvious that Cruncher knew Idra would not try and attack until it was way, way, way too late.
3) Idra's hive tech was obscenely late; he needed to get Hive tech faster to deal with that deathball, as even though Ultras and Broodlords die to VRs, they are the only units that can do some damage (other than Roaches) to a deathball when it is maxed (other than Infestors who can manage to get close without getting swiped by a Colossus).
|
If you want to check real imbalance, look at rets games (even though he could have done better) and not at Idras.
The builds Cruncher did were EXTREME coinflips. The Build from Game 1 dies only not to Hydra Drop. The build is obvious, you go Air for defense, then you build Colossus to be safe against Hydras. The problem though: You would die to any other aggression (what Idra just doesnt do at all, what is bad imo). Mondragons Games are an example, what he could have done. Against Crunchers Style, he would pretty much won instantly. (Actually, Zeerax and Cruncher did the exact same strategy. Zeerax did play it worse. But i think he would have won 1 game against idra)
If you dont go Colossus right away, then you die to Hydras. Even if you go Colossus and miss the timing, you could die pretty easy to Hydras.
TL;DR Cruncher Strategy dies to every MULTI-PRONGED aggression in the time before your first Colossus is out.
But Cruncher was intelligent, he knew Idra would not attack.
I tried so hard to get a solid PvZ, saw this strategy (it is pretty much Standard) and guess what? I died to every Zerg who attacked me (and dropped me). (3000 masters)
InControls / Naniwas / MCs Styles are so much safer and doesn't rely on the Zerg not attacking.
|
On March 30 2011 01:11 Goliath-sc wrote:
when a protoss gets 200 food with the right unit composition, it becomes nearly impossible to kill it. Blizzard admitted the problem, but did not fix it.
They've addressed it with the infestor changes in patch 1.3.
|
On March 30 2011 01:15 gnutz wrote:
If you want to check real imbalance, look at rets games (even though he could have done better) and not at Idras.
The builds Cruncher did were EXTREME coinflips. The Build from Game 1 dies only not to Hydra Drop. The build is obvious, you go Air for defense, then you build Colossus to be safe against Hydras. The problem though: You would die to any other aggression (what Idra just doesnt do at all, what is bad imo). Mondragons Games are an example, what he could have done. Against Crunchers Style, he would pretty much won instantly. (Actually, Zeerax and Cruncher did the exact same strategy. Zeerax did play it worse. But i think he would have won 1 game against idra)
If you dont go Colossus right away, then you die to Hydras. Even if you go Colossus and miss the timing, you could die pretty easy to Hydras.
TL;DR Cruncher Strategy dies to every MULTI-PRONGED aggression in the time before your first Colossus is out.
But Cruncher was intelligent, he knew Idra would not attack.
I tried so hard to get a solid PvZ, saw this strategy (it is pretty much Standard) and guess what? I died to every Zerg who attacked me (and dropped me). (3000 masters)
InControls / Naniwas / MCs Styles are so much safer and doesn't rely on the Zerg not attacking.
Exactly, I don't know how you can open Forge FE = > Stargate and do no damage then get away with it, while also taking a fast 3rd AND teching hard.
|
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=133215
IdrA: "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.
|
What does that have to do with the strategy forums? Yes IdrA does have very very BM. Totally irrelevant when it comes to the actual games.
|
What does BM have to do with anything in a thread about the game analysis? Too many threads have already been cluttered to fuck with people saying 'LOL IDRA GETS BMd' and 'OMG HE BM? THATS SO MEAN'. Right now you're in the starcraft 2 strategy section. Not the I'm bored and want to bitch / gossip section.
Sorry to bite your head off but its really annoying reading through different threads and seeing the same stupid comments for and against IdrA over and over again.
edit: posted before I saw Onos post, oops!
|
you want to discuss a pretty standard P v Z game, where the zerg player was greedy and passive and lost because of it?
you can't avoid the obvious talking point and make a SUMMARY of the series without mentioning the BM.
fact is, idra didn't give credit to cruncher for his play. cruncher deserves credit for his play because he played better.
|
On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
Idra made a boatload of mistakes in G1 that could have easily won him the game :
1) Hydra drop even on Shakuras is very good especially the way Cruncher opened. Any Hydra drop in his main would have allowed Idra to do serious damage, if not outright win the game. Cruncher was spending all of his early gas on fast tech into VR/Colossus; he had almost no Gateway units. He only had 2 Colossus when a normal Hydra drop happens, so it would have been quite easy for Idra to win (or at least do BIG damage).
Hydra drop play is indeed strong against CrunCher's build. However if you read CrunCher's post game interview, he says that he knew drop play was a weakness to his build and he had practiced specifically against it. Had Idra used drops in game 1, I think it would have been a close battle and not instant win for Idra like you suggest. Cruncher's stargate units would have scouted out the drop coming from miles away, giving him time to warp in extra gateway units to defend. And having 2 colossus in time to defend a hydra drop is huge, do you not realize how weak hydras are off creep against colossus, especially inside someone else's main where they'll have to walk through a maze of buildings?
On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
2) He allowed Cruncher to take an easy 3rd without any kind of punishment / pressure. Anyone who argues otherwise has honestly never played PvZ at a decent level, because Cruncher took that 3rd BEFORE Colossus were even out (before 11 minutes was when it first came up). This type of play would have gotten stomped by Nestea, July, or any other Z who knows how to play early to mid game aggression. Cruncher tailored his build SPECIFICALLY for Idra. It was painfully obvious that Cruncher knew Idra would not try and attack until it was way, way, way too late.
Cruncher also tailored his build to the map. He got that super early 3rd on Shakuras because it is super easy to defend. Stargate opener gives him great scouting against any mid game aggression, and a forcefield on the ramp is all it takes to block attacks on his 3rd. Again, Cruncher stated in his interview that his goal was to get to that 3 base colossus/void ray, and "found all the flaws to a quick 3rd." Do you think he just prayed that Idra wouldn't attack him early on? As further evidence of this, watch the beginning of game 2 closely - Cruncher sends out a 2nd probe to scout after not finding Idra right next to him. He's scouting for a 6 pool! Yes Cruncher knows Idra's style and is playing specifically against it, but in no way is he just doing coin flips.
On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
3) Idra's hive tech was obscenely late; he needed to get Hive tech faster to deal with that deathball, as even though Ultras and Broodlords die to VRs, they are the only units that can do some damage (other than Roaches) to a deathball when it is maxed (other than Infestors who can manage to get close without getting swiped by a Colossus).
I'm not sure what game you're playing, but ultras and brood lords are not the answer to colossus/VR. Infestors are great, roaches are great, corruptors are great. And when I say great, I don't mean a 200/200 roach/corruptor/infestor can beat 200/200 colossus/VR/stalker, but it can damage that protoss deathball enough so that a remax to 200/200 can finish it off.
|
On March 30 2011 01:38 abominable wrote:
you want to discuss a pretty standard P v Z game, where the zerg player was greedy and passive and lost because of it?
you can't avoid the obvious talking point and make a SUMMARY of the series without mentioning the BM.
fact is, idra didn't give credit to cruncher for his play. cruncher deserves credit for his play because he played better.
Game 1 IdrA was greedy if you want to call expanding when the opponent is turtling greedy. He hit 200/200 way before Cruncher, and if you watch the game again he poked at the front, he nydused the back, he poked at the front some more. The problem was (I'm not sure if you've played zerg, so not sure if you realise this), zergs units can be quite fragile. If you over commit, against a stronger force, it can be instant GG because you don't have the time to get back to an overwhelming food advantage. Zerg doesn't get 'power units' like siege tanks or sentries or immortals which in small numbers can change things a lot. Arguably the infestor counts, but this was pre 1.3 when infestors even trying to chain fungal a toss deathball didn't even fully nullify the shields.
I don't know why I'm bothering actually, you have an agenda already. So please, feel entitled to your opinion, just stop cluttering the strategy section by reposting IdrA hate, it's not actually desired here because some of us don't care if it was IdrA, we care that we get stomped by the same 200/200 composition on the ladder and we want to know what mistakes to avoid and what things to take advantage of.
The blizzard forums are probably a better outlet for your frustration.
|
On March 30 2011 01:48 Dreaming11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:38 abominable wrote:
you want to discuss a pretty standard P v Z game, where the zerg player was greedy and passive and lost because of it?
you can't avoid the obvious talking point and make a SUMMARY of the series without mentioning the BM.
fact is, idra didn't give credit to cruncher for his play. cruncher deserves credit for his play because he played better. Game 1 IdrA was greedy if you want to call expanding when the opponent is turtling greedy. He hit 200/200 way before Cruncher, and if you watch the game again he poked at the front, he nydused the back, he poked at the front some more. The problem was (I'm not sure if you've played zerg, so not sure if you realise this), zergs units can be quite fragile. If you over commit, against a stronger force, it can be instant GG because you don't have the time to get back to an overwhelming food advantage. Zerg doesn't get 'power units' like siege tanks or sentries or immortals which in small numbers can change things a lot. Arguably the infestor counts, but this was pre 1.3 when infestors even trying to chain fungal a toss deathball didn't even fully nullify the shields. I don't know why I'm bothering actually, you have an agenda already. So please, feel entitled to your opinion, just stop cluttering the strategy section by reposting IdrA hate, it's not actually desired here because some of us don't care if it was IdrA, we care that we get stomped by the same 200/200 composition on the ladder and we want to know what mistakes to avoid and what things to take advantage of. The blizzard forums are probably a better outlet for your frustration.
so heres a quick summary of your post.
Assert: you shouldn't post about idra because the people in this thread are just here to learn how to beat VR/Colo
Acknowledge: The games were played in a different patch and infestors are probably a viable answer.
So what your post reaaally boils down to is wanting to defend idrA's little hissy fits whenever he gets smacked out of a tournament, and trying to cloak it in something more noble.
|
On March 30 2011 00:30 Dragar wrote:
The other reason it's frustrating is zerg is is terribly equipped for this style. Hydras and roaches, amdist the enemy sim-city, with the worst (albeit cheapest and most plentiful after some expensive upgrades) dropships in the game, just aren't good units to inflict quick economic damage and escape.
Worst dropships in the game?
You serious?
They're FREE in food. They actually provide you with MORE food.
Medivac: 2 food, 100/100
Warp Prism: 2 food, 200
Overlord: -8 food, 1 larva, 100
They also poop creep making all their dropped units move faster. Every zerg has lings with ling speed by the late game, 4 overlords full of lings dropped into the main to aim at gateways is no investment whatsoever. They're zerglings, you don't HAVE to retreat them, infact, you'd probably rather they die so that you can make more beefy things to deal with the now unreinforcable death ball.
Overlords are by far the best late game dropships in the game for the simple fact that there is no limit to the number of them you can have.
Actually, come to that, overseers corrupting all the gateways would have exactly the same effect. Little bit more gas involved but less risk involved. It would be a great thing for late game zergs to get a bunch of overseers for that purpose because again, they cost negative food.
|
Idra simply didn't tech. Lair 20 minutes into a game where NO fighting took place? Please.
|
On March 30 2011 01:45 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
Idra made a boatload of mistakes in G1 that could have easily won him the game :
1) Hydra drop even on Shakuras is very good especially the way Cruncher opened. Any Hydra drop in his main would have allowed Idra to do serious damage, if not outright win the game. Cruncher was spending all of his early gas on fast tech into VR/Colossus; he had almost no Gateway units. He only had 2 Colossus when a normal Hydra drop happens, so it would have been quite easy for Idra to win (or at least do BIG damage).
Hydra drop play is indeed strong against CrunCher's build. However if you read CrunCher's post game interview, he says that he knew drop play was a weakness to his build and he had practiced specifically against it. Had Idra used drops in game 1, I think it would have been a close battle and not instant win for Idra like you suggest. Cruncher's stargate units would have scouted out the drop coming from miles away, giving him time to warp in extra gateway units to defend. And having 2 colossus in time to defend a hydra drop is huge, do you not realize how weak hydras are off creep against colossus, especially inside someone else's main where they'll have to walk through a maze of buildings? Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
2) He allowed Cruncher to take an easy 3rd without any kind of punishment / pressure. Anyone who argues otherwise has honestly never played PvZ at a decent level, because Cruncher took that 3rd BEFORE Colossus were even out (before 11 minutes was when it first came up). This type of play would have gotten stomped by Nestea, July, or any other Z who knows how to play early to mid game aggression. Cruncher tailored his build SPECIFICALLY for Idra. It was painfully obvious that Cruncher knew Idra would not try and attack until it was way, way, way too late.
Cruncher also tailored his build to the map. He got that super early 3rd on Shakuras because it is super easy to defend. Stargate opener gives him great scouting against any mid game aggression, and a forcefield on the ramp is all it takes to block attacks on his 3rd. Again, Cruncher stated in his interview that his goal was to get to that 3 base colossus/void ray, and "found all the flaws to a quick 3rd." Do you think he just prayed that Idra wouldn't attack him early on? As further evidence of this, watch the beginning of game 2 closely - Cruncher sends out a 2nd probe to scout after not finding Idra right next to him. He's scouting for a 6 pool! Yes Cruncher knows Idra's style and is playing specifically against it, but in no way is he just doing coin flips. Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
3) Idra's hive tech was obscenely late; he needed to get Hive tech faster to deal with that deathball, as even though Ultras and Broodlords die to VRs, they are the only units that can do some damage (other than Roaches) to a deathball when it is maxed (other than Infestors who can manage to get close without getting swiped by a Colossus). I'm not sure what game you're playing, but ultras and brood lords are not the answer to colossus/VR. Infestors are great, roaches are great, corruptors are great. And when I say great, I don't mean a 200/200 roach/corruptor/infestor can beat 200/200 colossus/VR/stalker, but it can damage that protoss deathball enough so that a remax to 200/200 can finish it off.
His 3rd timing is extremely greedy, there is no way Cruncher defends that 3rd if Idra actually forces him to fight for it. His unit count was extremely low at that point of the game, leaving him extremely open to Hydra/Roach drops along with multi pronged attacks, or any other type of big attack on a vulnerable position (his 3rd was in a very easily attacked position as he didn't have any troops to defend it, and no cannons at all until later). That particular 3rd is not easy to hold; the 3rd closer to the main is much easier to hold.
Idra is way ahead of Cruncher so even if the Hydra drop gets beat Cruncher is way behind. Forcing any kind of fight / trade was in favor of Idra considering he was on 3 bases very quickly going towards a 4th. Dropping Hydras in main means that if Cruncher doesn't fight it he loses important tech buildings; if he does fight the Hydras, it means that Idra is going to be forcing unit losses on Cruncher. Either way, Idra is coming ahead here.
Cruncher had practiced for drop play but it was painfully obvious that he was not ready for it in G2. A Hydra drop in G1 would have wrecked him, plain and simple. Cruncher's build in particular is almost a coin flip, because any aggressive play / drop play / multi prong attack would put him in a very tough position (almost undefendable with the deathball).
Not to mention Idra's Corrupter control was absolutely atrocious.
|
On March 30 2011 01:57 ValiantGood wrote:
Idra simply didn't tech. Lair 20 minutes into a game where NO fighting took place? Please.
Hive tech would have only helped with upgrades and I think he got it in a timing fashion to get his 3-3. Hive tech doesn't equip you with a means to deal with maxed out Colossi/void ray. So no Idra's "mistake" wasn't that he didn't tech. There were various smaller mistakes that just built up.
I see no reason to post rubbish 1 liners. Anihc posted a great summary.
|
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.
|
he drone drone drone, me win :D
|
On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
Idra made mistakes that Diamond / Low Master Z players make all the time, which is sit back camp and macro up hoping to overwhelm a 200/200 deathball, but allowing it to move into the center of the map.
Idra attacked when he hit 200/200, and the Cruncher was still 150ish. This is a pretty standard attack timing for high-level play.
On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
Idra made a boatload of mistakes in G1 that could have easily won him the game :
1) Hydra drop even on Shakuras is very good especially the way Cruncher opened. Any Hydra drop in his main would have allowed Idra to do serious damage, if not outright win the game. Cruncher was spending all of his early gas on fast tech into VR/Colossus; he had almost no Gateway units. He only had 2 Colossus when a normal Hydra drop happens, so it would have been quite easy for Idra to win (or at least do BIG damage).
2) He allowed Cruncher to take an easy 3rd without any kind of punishment / pressure. Anyone who argues otherwise has honestly never played PvZ at a decent level, because Cruncher took that 3rd BEFORE Colossus were even out (before 11 minutes was when it first came up). This type of play would have gotten stomped by Nestea, July, or any other Z who knows how to play early to mid game aggression. Cruncher tailored his build SPECIFICALLY for Idra. It was painfully obvious that Cruncher knew Idra would not try and attack until it was way, way, way too late.
These aren't mistakes, they're strategic choices: macro vs aggression. Obviously if it doesn't work out, you can just point and say "you should have done the other option". The truth is that neither choice is clearly better than the other, otherwise it would be standard and there would be no real choice. The fact that there is no standard play proves that it wasn't a mistake, but just a strategic choice.
On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
3) Idra's hive tech was obscenely late; he needed to get Hive tech faster to deal with that deathball, as even though Ultras and Broodlords die to VRs, they are the only units that can do some damage (other than Roaches) to a deathball when it is maxed (other than Infestors who can manage to get close without getting swiped by a Colossus).
You believe it's a mistake not to spend tons of gas to tech to T3 units, all of which are massive, and none of which can attack up, against mass void rays? /boggle
You may disagree with Idra's strategic choices, but they are not mistakes, these are decisions made deliberately by someone that understands the game at a very very high level. This is in contrast to basic beginner mistakes like putting colossi on the same key as a main army, failing to watch the minimap for drops, and becoming completely overwhelmed by a simple double drop. There is no reasonable excuse for this from a pro-level player.
|
On March 30 2011 01:56 Unwardil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 00:30 Dragar wrote:
The other reason it's frustrating is zerg is is terribly equipped for this style. Hydras and roaches, amdist the enemy sim-city, with the worst (albeit cheapest and most plentiful after some expensive upgrades) dropships in the game, just aren't good units to inflict quick economic damage and escape.
Worst dropships in the game? You serious? They're FREE in food. They actually provide you with MORE food. Medivac: 2 food, 100/100 Warp Prism: 2 food, 200 Overlord: -8 food, 1 larva, 100 They also poop creep making all their dropped units move faster. Every zerg has lings with ling speed by the late game, 4 overlords full of lings dropped into the main to aim at gateways is no investment whatsoever. They're zerglings, you don't HAVE to retreat them, infact, you'd probably rather they die so that you can make more beefy things to deal with the now unreinforcable death ball. Overlords are by far the best late game dropships in the game for the simple fact that there is no limit to the number of them you can have. Actually, come to that, overseers corrupting all the gateways would have exactly the same effect. Little bit more gas involved but less risk involved. It would be a great thing for late game zergs to get a bunch of overseers for that purpose because again, they cost negative food.
Warp prisms are pretty poor as dropships, I agree (though see White-Ra's recent PvP!). But everything you just rambled about overlords is irrelevent for how they perform their role in multipronged harass. They serve a purpose, but they don't turn your roach/hydra/overlord into MMM. You can't do that style of harass (or at least, not unless you're significantly better than your opponent, or have some other crazy advantage going on).
Zerglings dropped into the main just throws away your minerals/production capacity. You need to be a lot better than just 'lol lings in your main'.
|
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.
|
I wasn't advocating trying to do m/m/m with zerg, I was saying that when you've got the deathball pinned in the center of the map, there's no damn way it can get back to deal with zerglings killing all your gateways. The overlords have only got to get the lings over the cliff, that's a very short transport distance and because overlords are FREE on food, you always have this option available to you. If you're 20 minutes into the game and you haven't just automatically upgraded ventral sacks, you deserve to lose.
|
idra knew his 200/200 would be weak against the protoss 200/200, but he played towards it anyway and didn't have any plan to deal with it and prevent the inevitable.
would you rather:
a) spot greedy build and cheese (NOT necessarily ALL-IN until you're sure it's going to work) and potentially not use any skill to win the match except for a few moments of insane micro.
b) say "sure, gogo econ macro and let's fight at 200/200", knowing what you know about zerg units being 'fragile', but continue anyway because it's a great measure of skill when you have to build more hatcheries, press D and spread creep.
i don't know about you, but i'd rather choose a) in an important game and i'd also much prefer watching an a) as opposed to having to watch a boring 20 minute passive snooze-fest at the start of each game.
|
On March 29 2011 23:42 StUfF wrote:
Regarding the 3rd game.
Cruncher says he was going for the same build (colossus-voidray) but when his hallucinated phoenix scouted no units he just decided to go kill him. Idra probably underestimating Cruncher, didn't think he would react to scouting information and play exactly like games 1-2 (ironically he himself didn't scout/react properly to Crunchers push and droned). Idra assuming the opponent will do x as he so often does.
No way that's true. Crucher was going for the 4gate, got scouted, so he went 6 gate. I'm not intimately familiar with the 6gate timing, but this one felt pretty damn quick.
IdrA saw the 4gate coming, figured it was fake, but then guessed wrong on the followup. He saw a second nexus and a ton of sentries. It's not hard to see how you could read that as a very fast Protoss 3rd. His final error - the 7 drones - was queued before his watchtower could see the advancing units.
As for the BM, I don't understand why ppl aren't laughing at it. IdrA's gigantic ego and butthurt are so predictable and pointless that they're absolutely hilarious. Takes vastly more insult and flaming to get people mad on forums, what's so different about playing an online game?
EDIT: Can't believe this argument is happening in this thread, but... The dropships all carry 8 spaces of units slowly anywhere on the map and give vision. Each species has added value to their units.
Terran: Heals units. Expensive per unit.
Protoss: Can create units on the spot. High mineral cost.
Zerg: Provides supply. Can generate creep while stationary. Cheap to produce.
As we can see, their primary roles as dropships are basically the same, but it's their different specials and relative costs that differentiate them. They are unquestionably different, but their usefulness depends on style and situation. Griping about them even reasonably well requires a lot more consideration that most are giving.
|
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.
|
On March 30 2011 02:12 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
Idra made mistakes that Diamond / Low Master Z players make all the time, which is sit back camp and macro up hoping to overwhelm a 200/200 deathball, but allowing it to move into the center of the map. Idra attacked when he hit 200/200, and the Cruncher was still 150ish. This is a pretty standard attack timing for high-level play. Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
Idra made a boatload of mistakes in G1 that could have easily won him the game :
1) Hydra drop even on Shakuras is very good especially the way Cruncher opened. Any Hydra drop in his main would have allowed Idra to do serious damage, if not outright win the game. Cruncher was spending all of his early gas on fast tech into VR/Colossus; he had almost no Gateway units. He only had 2 Colossus when a normal Hydra drop happens, so it would have been quite easy for Idra to win (or at least do BIG damage).
2) He allowed Cruncher to take an easy 3rd without any kind of punishment / pressure. Anyone who argues otherwise has honestly never played PvZ at a decent level, because Cruncher took that 3rd BEFORE Colossus were even out (before 11 minutes was when it first came up). This type of play would have gotten stomped by Nestea, July, or any other Z who knows how to play early to mid game aggression. Cruncher tailored his build SPECIFICALLY for Idra. It was painfully obvious that Cruncher knew Idra would not try and attack until it was way, way, way too late.
These aren't mistakes, they're strategic choices: macro vs aggression. Obviously if it doesn't work out, you can just point and say "you should have done the other option". The truth is that neither choice is clearly better than the other, otherwise it would be standard and there would be no real choice. The fact that there is no standard play proves that it wasn't a mistake, but just a strategic choice. Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:15 superstartran wrote:
3) Idra's hive tech was obscenely late; he needed to get Hive tech faster to deal with that deathball, as even though Ultras and Broodlords die to VRs, they are the only units that can do some damage (other than Roaches) to a deathball when it is maxed (other than Infestors who can manage to get close without getting swiped by a Colossus). You believe it's a mistake not to spend tons of gas to tech to T3 units, all of which are massive, and none of which can attack up, against mass void rays? /boggle You may disagree with Idra's strategic choices, but they are not mistakes, these are decisions made deliberately by someone that understands the game at a very very high level. This is in contrast to basic beginner mistakes like putting colossi on the same key as a main army, failing to watch the minimap for drops, and becoming completely overwhelmed by a simple double drop. There is no reasonable excuse for this from a pro-level player.
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?
It is standard play for Z to play VERY aggressive when P player is just massing up a deathball like that; anyone who just stands there and waits for it is asking to lose. That is what Idra did and that is why he deserved to lose game 1, despite the multiple amount of oppertunities he had to just go over there and kill Cruncher. If It was Nestea, July, or any other top Z player in Idra's position they would have 100% won G1 with the amount of map control that they had, because they would have contested Cruncher's 3rd and forced him to fight for it, thus creating the perfect opportunity to trade armies, which heavily favors the Z at that point.
Idra of course made the huge mistake of doing not doing such a thing, and got wiped out because of it. Cruncher essentially does almost the virtually same build in G2 and gets ROLLED by a Hydra drop. You're telling me that a Hydra drop wouldn't have beaten Cruncher in G1 with his super low unit count, super early 3rd, and super fast tech? Cruncher was playing so greedy that it was hilarious; he knew Idra would not attack, and abused that fact. It is just how Jinro can get away with double expanding vs Idra but not vs Morrow. Idra's one dimensional play is starting to really show its ugly head, and that is why he keeps getting beat by worse and worse players, because he refuses to adapt. In a game like SC2 that is constantly evolving, Idra refuses to improve his other skill sets in order to compete, and that's why he is starting to lose ground on the tournament scene.
|
On March 30 2011 01:52 m3rciless wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:48 Dreaming11 wrote:On March 30 2011 01:38 abominable wrote:
you want to discuss a pretty standard P v Z game, where the zerg player was greedy and passive and lost because of it?
you can't avoid the obvious talking point and make a SUMMARY of the series without mentioning the BM.
fact is, idra didn't give credit to cruncher for his play. cruncher deserves credit for his play because he played better. Game 1 IdrA was greedy if you want to call expanding when the opponent is turtling greedy. He hit 200/200 way before Cruncher, and if you watch the game again he poked at the front, he nydused the back, he poked at the front some more. The problem was (I'm not sure if you've played zerg, so not sure if you realise this), zergs units can be quite fragile. If you over commit, against a stronger force, it can be instant GG because you don't have the time to get back to an overwhelming food advantage. Zerg doesn't get 'power units' like siege tanks or sentries or immortals which in small numbers can change things a lot. Arguably the infestor counts, but this was pre 1.3 when infestors even trying to chain fungal a toss deathball didn't even fully nullify the shields. I don't know why I'm bothering actually, you have an agenda already. So please, feel entitled to your opinion, just stop cluttering the strategy section by reposting IdrA hate, it's not actually desired here because some of us don't care if it was IdrA, we care that we get stomped by the same 200/200 composition on the ladder and we want to know what mistakes to avoid and what things to take advantage of. The blizzard forums are probably a better outlet for your frustration. so heres a quick summary of your post. Assert: you shouldn't post about idra because the people in this thread are just here to learn how to beat VR/Colo Acknowledge: The games were played in a different patch and infestors are probably a viable answer. So what your post reaaally boils down to is wanting to defend idrA's little hissy fits whenever he gets smacked out of a tournament, and trying to cloak it in something more noble.
Actually I don't agree with your summary of my post at all.
I said arguably the infestor could be a power unit vs protoss because it was buffed in 1.3, but I don't know. People are welcome to post about IdrA all they like, but there is a place for it, if they want to say '[G] IdrAs Macrozerg ZvP' or even 'IdrAs macrozerg style sucks, here's why' fine, if they want to say 'Idra very BM player I dont like him' there's another section for it, no need to clutter up a thread about the actual strategy / analysis in the games. Just the same as if someone was moaning about Cruncher.
The only way I could be possibly said to be defending idra is by saying please take the IdrA bashing to another thread.
|
On March 30 2011 02:17 Unwardil wrote:
I wasn't advocating trying to do m/m/m with zerg, I was saying that when you've got the deathball pinned in the center of the map, there's no damn way it can get back to deal with zerglings killing all your gateways. The overlords have only got to get the lings over the cliff, that's a very short transport distance and because overlords are FREE on food, you always have this option available to you. If you're 20 minutes into the game and you haven't just automatically upgraded ventral sacks, you deserve to lose.
Or you warp in a round of zealots, clean up. Or lose all your gateways and smile as your deathball crushes the zerg army, that is even smaller than usual because of that drop.
|
On March 30 2011 02:24 confusedcrib wrote:Show nested quote +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????).
I think this has been said before in the topic, but I think in Game 3 idrA would have been fine if one or two of the extra seven drones were morphed into Spine Crawlers. He could have had a much better engage closer to his base; quicker to reinforce, and safer in general. Would he have won? Who knows, but I can't imagine he would have gotten rolled as easily as he did.
I was really impressed with Cruncher's play. It's very obvious that he spent a lot of time practicing vs idrA's macro-heavy play style. I'm definitely looking forward to his next match. Anyone who hasn't checked out Day9's Sunday show from this week really should watch it.
|
On March 30 2011 02:33 Albrithe wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
Germany6657 Posts
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.
|
Really loving the blue posts system as well. Cruncher has been doing well consistently and when I look at how the best players lose series I hold Crunchers style much higher then Idras. Cruncher might just straight out macro or he might one base and for this reason alone he has an edge over idra imo. It's common knowledge that you need to mix it up a little.
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.
|
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?
|
This spoiler is a response to a post made by Onus on a much earlier page (page 4 I believe) that was a response to my post:
+ 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).
|
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
|
On March 29 2011 07:26 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:13 Whitewing wrote:On March 29 2011 07:05 Treemonkeys wrote:
Your analysis on game one is incorrect, Idra never had enough corruptors to dominate the air, not even enough to kill HALF of the void rays. Corruptors will never work against that many void rays. Would muta or hydra have worked better? Muta seems like the best option to me, but even once you get THAT many voids they don't far so well because by the time the mutas kill a few of them the rest are fully charged. Hydras work if you can actually get good positioning, not something a protoss of that level would ever let happen. The conclusion is sort of correct still though, had IdrA sacrificed his army to essentially just throw money at the protoss at the protoss' base to begin with, and used his far superior economy to whittle down the toss with massive numbers, it would have been different. First remax on corrupters, kill all colossi. Then remax on hydras, take out stalkers+void rays (hydras do quite well against both). You need to give yourself room and time to make use of your economy, and that doesn't happen if you wait for the protoss to move out. You just need to accept that they'll have superior position at first, and throw money to take down the important units. 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.
|
Just a short reply to crazedmike:
+ 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.
|
Ignoring all the 'bias' comments, I'm rather surprised that your analysis of game 1 and review of what IdrA ought to have done focused more on how IdrA should have dealt with the ball, as opposed to how IdrA could have prevented the ball in the first place.
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.
|
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??
|
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.
|
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.
|
United States7483 Posts
It should be obvious:
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.
|
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.
|
I dont want to read a seven page thread, but the reason Idra won game 2 was not because he abused mobility (mainly) but it was he hit a timing where the colossus wernt out and gateways wernt finished. Cruncher having 2base yeah probably helped somewhat, but it was mainly Cruncher didnt have the units Idra did and Idra was able to actually attack and not hit this big ass wall.
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.
|
On March 29 2011 07:41 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 07:28 confusedcrib wrote:On March 29 2011 07:00 Anihc wrote:On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
I know that these games are still full of emotion for fans of every player, but try and think of these games objectively. It's made even worse by the fact that Idra is extremely vocal about his feelings on the game, but this analysis is just that, an analysis, and shouldn't be taken as saying who deserved to win.
Wait are you serious? I can't tell if you're trolling/being sarcastic but your game analysis is extremely biased and you made it painfully obvious that you thought Idra deserved to win. I never once said anything like that and would really appreciate you being more specific, otherwise it looks like a blue poster came into the thread and thought I had nothing good to say immediately. In fact, I over praised Idra because I was worried that if I didn't people might think I didn't give him enough credit. No player "deserved to win" Cruncher did a build, and Idra either stopped it or he didn't, Cruncher opted for the "force my opponent to do x or die" route while Idra opted for the "he's doing this so I'll do that" route. In fact, since you read this analysis and think I thought Idra deserved to win, I would conclude more so that that is your own bias coming into the analysis. But if you're going to blindly flame me, especially as the first post, please be more specific. Wow you are incredibly blind. First of all everything is written from Idra's point of view. And everything he does is god-like: Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Idra makes some of the best drone vs. unit decisions of any player in the world.
beautifully timed out to finish at the same time as the first colossus, rest assured this timing is no coincidence.
Idra does some more beautiful scouting with overlords
Idra through his great decision making is up 22 drones over Cruncher at this point
Idra then reloads almost entirely on corrupters, the perfect decision.
Idra's decision making throughout the game between drones and units is near flawless
Idra plays so well this game that your face might melt from the awesome.
this game is a must watch for Idra's incredible play
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: Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 06:45 confusedcrib wrote:
Cruncher is able to dominate what few roaches Idra has out with excellent forcefields and take the game, with a friendly, non sarcastic, non manner smiley face to boot.
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Cruncher has very good FF Skills.
|
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
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...
|
On April 01 2011 03:15 Rob28 wrote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
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...
Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point. So it looks imba when it's really not as evidenced by long aggregate of win/loss statistics, tournament wins, etc where other races are represented quite respectively. Game is pretty damn balanced looking at numbers. No obvious imba like, "this strat is impossible to defeat" such as early buffed VRs were. And yes Zerg is crazy to let Toss turtle when Zerg has macro advantage and 4000K resources in the bank and should lose every time like IdrA G1.
|
On April 07 2011 06:50 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 03:15 Rob28 wrote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
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... Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point. So it looks imba when it's really not as evidenced by long aggregate of win/loss statistics, tournament wins, etc where other races are represented quite respectively. Game is pretty damn balanced looking at numbers. No obvious imba like, "this strat is impossible to defeat" such as early buffed VRs were. And yes Zerg is crazy to let Toss turtle when Zerg has macro advantage and 4000K resources in the bank and should lose every time like IdrA G1.
Remember TSL 3 Ret vs Naniwa
Ret was 70 Supply ahead and dropped like crazy and still lost
well he didnt play perfectly but still
|
On April 07 2011 07:06 Sclol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 06:50 tdt wrote:On April 01 2011 03:15 Rob28 wrote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
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... Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point. So it looks imba when it's really not as evidenced by long aggregate of win/loss statistics, tournament wins, etc where other races are represented quite respectively. Game is pretty damn balanced looking at numbers. No obvious imba like, "this strat is impossible to defeat" such as early buffed VRs were. And yes Zerg is crazy to let Toss turtle when Zerg has macro advantage and 4000K resources in the bank and should lose every time like IdrA G1. Remember TSL 3 Ret vs Naniwa Ret was 70 Supply ahead and dropped like crazy and still lost well he didnt play perfectly but still
ret also was 200/200 on roaches against blink stalker + immortal...pretty good
|
top level PvZ has shown us time and again that in order to beat a protoss the zerg has to pull out every trick in the book while the toss can decide to 4 gate n FF ramp or sit back and macro to void colossus...doesnt seem right. Watching one of the most skilled zergs in the world lose to a player of much less caliber is very frustrating. I doubt cruncher would even qualify for code b in korea while Idra held code s. Every game against a protoss is an uphill battle even when they are a league below me. at this stage of the game protoss is ridiculously hard to beat and its taking the fun out of laddering and watching tournaments like MLG TSL and GSL. If only zerg could two base ultras or broods then take a third to become unstoppable...
|
On April 07 2011 07:34 Disarm22 wrote:
Protoss is ridiculously hard to beat and its taking the fun out of laddering and watching tournaments .
Balance whine is taking the fun out every forum and every chat channel.
|
On April 07 2011 06:50 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 03:15 Rob28 wrote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
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... Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point. So it looks imba when it's really not as evidenced by long aggregate of win/loss statistics, tournament wins, etc where other races are represented quite respectively. Game is pretty damn balanced looking at numbers. No obvious imba like, "this strat is impossible to defeat" such as early buffed VRs were. And yes Zerg is crazy to let Toss turtle when Zerg has macro advantage and 4000K resources in the bank and should lose every time like IdrA G1.
"Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point."
So by you standars whenever a zerg hits 200/200, the toss is at 100/200?
I highly doubt that.
The toss 200 dont take that much longer to get to, and all you have to do is turtle in your base until your there, and that is what pisses most people off i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
