|
United States248 Posts
On April 19 2014 02:06 Badjas wrote:Thanks TL Strategy Team  I haven't watched SC2 for a while now and it took some getting into. An ignorant person won't see the beauty in this game and even for an experienced person there's something to admire on second and third watch. + Show Spoiler [feedback] +The perspective concept is cool. I thought it could be a bit stronger still (more bold perhaps) where you'd exemplify information being hidden. Patience's piece was written a bit more .. negative (losing side) through out, but that was perhaps the reality.
Hey there,
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that there was more we could do with it, emphasizing troop movement relative to information. The problem with that is that it gets so in depth as to not appeal to the average front page viewer. That may be something that I (and SC2John) explore later, but for now I think we're pretty happy with this  .
Oh, and for what its worth I don't think the Patience write up is all that negative. The ending is, of course, because he lost :3. But there were several points where Patience had a resounding lead, and I think the article reflects that.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 19 2014 02:06 Badjas wrote:Thanks TL Strategy Team I haven't watched SC2 for a while now and it took some getting into. An ignorant person won't see the beauty in this game and even for an experienced person there's something to admire on second and third watch. + Show Spoiler [feedback] +The perspective concept is cool. I thought it could be a bit stronger still (more bold perhaps) where you'd exemplify information being hidden. Patience's piece was written a bit more .. negative (losing side) through out, but that was perhaps the reality.
We would love to produce more dual articles like this in the future, but it's very hard to go into a lot of detail. If we go into too much analytic depth, the article would be sprawling and take far too long to read through; this is good for a stylistic guide like the 4M guide or the really old PvZ guide, but for game analysis it can get quite stale.
We hope to continually experiment with different article formats and writing styles and we appreciate all of your feedback! Thanks again for reading!
|
On April 19 2014 03:02 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 02:06 Badjas wrote:Thanks TL Strategy Team I haven't watched SC2 for a while now and it took some getting into. An ignorant person won't see the beauty in this game and even for an experienced person there's something to admire on second and third watch. + Show Spoiler [feedback] +The perspective concept is cool. I thought it could be a bit stronger still (more bold perhaps) where you'd exemplify information being hidden. Patience's piece was written a bit more .. negative (losing side) through out, but that was perhaps the reality. We would love to produce more dual articles like this in the future, but it's very hard to go into a lot of detail. If we go into too much analytic depth, the article would be sprawling and take far too long to read through; this is good for a stylistic guide like the 4M guide or the really old PvZ guide, but for game analysis it can get quite stale. We hope to continually experiment with different article formats and writing styles and we appreciate all of your feedback! Thanks again for reading!
It doesn't have to be very in depth, but simply spending a page highlighting one match (even from just one side) is absolutely wonderful and allows you to rewatch the match with a different mindset.
The dual thing, I do love. But it doesn't have to be dual for it to be loved if you know what I mean
|
On April 19 2014 02:40 Jowj wrote:
Oh, and for what its worth I don't think the Patience write up is all that negative. The ending is, of course, because he lost :3. But there were several points where Patience had a resounding lead, and I think the article reflects that.
I reread it a bit and I'll concede
In my defense, I DID just watch the game then. And I thought Patience was gonna win it for the longest time. Damned phoenixes 
|
On April 18 2014 07:56 Holdenintherye wrote:
To be honest, I'm more impressed by the click the picture to switch thing than the article itself. That's some cool shit.
Yeah that's pretty bossley, documenting composition wars still doesn't make it interesting...
|
On April 19 2014 09:10 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 02:40 Jowj wrote:
Oh, and for what its worth I don't think the Patience write up is all that negative. The ending is, of course, because he lost :3. But there were several points where Patience had a resounding lead, and I think the article reflects that. I reread it a bit and I'll concede In my defense, I DID just watch the game then. And I thought Patience was gonna win it for the longest time. Damned phoenixes
I remember watching the vod of it (couldn't watch live  ) and even though I knew Jaedong won I still couldn't see how he won the game xD.
|
Why did Jaedong not just go kill him with his 50 (1/1) lings at ~11 minutes? Patience had ~5 sentries, 2 zealots, 1 immortal and MSC. He easily could have traded well and/or cancelled the 3rd. With a hive back home, I can't see how the game would have lasted much longer.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 20 2014 11:51 Alacast wrote:
Why did Jaedong not just go kill him with his 50 (1/1) lings at ~11 minutes? Patience had ~5 sentries, 2 zealots, 1 immortal and MSC. He easily could have traded well and/or cancelled the 3rd. With a hive back home, I can't see how the game would have lasted much longer.
That's a good point. But at the same time, those lings are Jaedong's only form of map control and vision at the time. If he commits to an attack (which he only had 20 lings at Patience's natural @11:00, the other 26 were in production), he loses all map presence and then he's on a defensive ultra army on 3 bases vs. 3 bases. Not ideal. If your goal is to trade, you need to be able to continually trade, which is just not possible on cross positions Alterzim with minimal creep spread.
As you can see shortly thereafter, Jaedong is able to use those lings to effectively prevent any kind of real pressure from hitting him as he grabs infestors. Cancelling the 4th is something Jaedong couldn't have done with his lings if he had sacrificed them. This also has the effect of pulling back Patience's potential pressure which Jaedong would have had to defend with his reinforcement lings had he traded.
Overall, I think it links back to game plan:
1) If our goal is to trade and slowly wear down our opponent, we need to be trading constantly. This isn't really possible in these positions on this map.
2) If our goal is to prevent the Protoss from expanding, we want to stay ahead in bases. Since we're obviously going for a hive rush on 3 bases, it doesn't seem useful to trade for the nexus.
3) If our goal is to use the lings for map control, we want to retain them as much as possible and only take small, cost efficient trades. Not only do the lings allow us to pick off stray units/probes/pylons, but they also give us vision of what's happening on the map and allows us to track our opponent's army. This one makes the most sense on this map, and this is how Jaedong decided to play.
|
On April 20 2014 13:00 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 11:51 Alacast wrote:
Why did Jaedong not just go kill him with his 50 (1/1) lings at ~11 minutes? Patience had ~5 sentries, 2 zealots, 1 immortal and MSC. He easily could have traded well and/or cancelled the 3rd. With a hive back home, I can't see how the game would have lasted much longer. That's a good point. But at the same time, those lings are Jaedong's only form of map control and vision at the time. If he commits to an attack (which he only had 20 lings at Patience's natural @11:00, the other 26 were in production), he loses all map presence and then he's on a defensive ultra army on 3 bases vs. 3 bases. Not ideal. If your goal is to trade, you need to be able to continually trade, which is just not possible on cross positions Alterzim with minimal creep spread. As you can see shortly thereafter, Jaedong is able to use those lings to effectively prevent any kind of real pressure from hitting him as he grabs infestors. Cancelling the 4th is something Jaedong couldn't have done with his lings if he had sacrificed them. This also has the effect of pulling back Patience's potential pressure which Jaedong would have had to defend with his reinforcement lings had he traded. Overall, I think it links back to game plan: 1) If our goal is to trade and slowly wear down our opponent, we need to be trading constantly. This isn't really possible in these positions on this map. 2) If our goal is to prevent the Protoss from expanding, we want to stay ahead in bases. Since we're obviously going for a hive rush on 3 bases, it doesn't seem useful to trade for the nexus. 3) If our goal is to use the lings for map control, we want to retain them as much as possible and only take small, cost efficient trades. Not only do the lings allow us to pick off stray units/probes/pylons, but they also give us vision of what's happening on the map and allows us to track our opponent's army. This one makes the most sense on this map, and this is how Jaedong decided to play.
I agree the rush distance is long, but I think he would have had a 30-40 second time-window to kill the third if the lings were rallied across the map before Colossus #1 was out, and I don't see how Patience would have held. Even slowing the third by this little margin would give JD a strong advantage.
Later on, he kills all of the Phoenix, right before his spire finishes, but he decides to go ultras (the worst attacking unit in the game) instead, essentially giving Patience a free-pass on taking a fourth and makes his investment into colossus/immortal super effective, and felt a lot like auto-pilot.
This map in cross-spawns has a tendency to go super long, with Zerg often just sitting and waiting seemingly forever, when they could very easily be taking opportunities earlier in the game to swing the momentum in their favor as opportunities present themselves. Broodlord, infestor, ultra, corruptor is a strong composition but there are weaknesses that Protoss can exploit if done correctly, so blindly following this build order could be a recipe for disaster (e.g. Zest Soo).
|
Greatest match of all time? I dont think so.
MVP vs Squirtle the enitre bo7 is far b etter than this game alone.
MVP vs Squirtle GSL Finals Playlist bo7
And obviously game 5 is the best one.
Absolutely the best finals in SC2 history.
THis is real TvP when the protoss acctualy had to make choices in the beginning about what units to make instead of being able to be safe against everything, being able to do 30 builds because no units need to be madfe before tech ...
|
These articles always look amazing
|
good game but by far not the best ^^
On April 20 2014 18:27 Gammkrabb wrote:Greatest match of all time? I dont think so. MVP vs Squirtle the enitre bo7 is far b etter than this game alone. MVP vs Squirtle GSL Finals Playlist bo7And obviously game 5 is the best one. Absolutely the best finals in SC2 history. THis is real TvP when the protoss acctualy had to make choices in the beginning about what units to make instead of being able to be safe against everything, being able to do 30 builds because no units need to be madfe before tech ...
jaeh but you talk drama etc, just from the game standpoint, a rush isnt that a good game
|
Awesome battlereport, but sloppy game. So many mistakes were made.
|
On April 20 2014 18:27 Gammkrabb wrote:Greatest match of all time? I dont think so. MVP vs Squirtle the enitre bo7 is far b etter than this game alone. MVP vs Squirtle GSL Finals Playlist bo7And obviously game 5 is the best one. Absolutely the best finals in SC2 history. THis is real TvP when the protoss acctualy had to make choices in the beginning about what units to make instead of being able to be safe against everything, being able to do 30 builds because no units need to be madfe before tech ...
Disagree so hard. That series was fun to watch, but it was far from the best games ever.
|
I remember watching this after staying up all night to catch Jaedong's matches... it was about 10am & was worth every bit of pain my body & mind endured that day from lack of sleep.
Lee Jaedong!!!!!!
|
Thanks for all the work and effort you put into this article (:
Made me watch this great game once again. Cheers!
|
I'm personally not a fan of any game whose first engagement occurs at the 25 minute mark.
Even more so when I get tricked into watching all 25 minutes of singleplayer macro because TL called it the best game of the year.
|
It's not because there's nothing dying that there's no interaction between the 2 players.
|
Awesome job guys, tyvm.
All hail the tyrant.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 22 2014 02:37 r691175002 wrote:
I'm personally not a fan of any game whose first engagement occurs at the 25 minute mark.
Even more so when I get tricked into watching all 25 minutes of singleplayer macro because TL called it the best game of the year.
On April 22 2014 03:48 SpawnMoarOverlords wrote:
It's not because there's nothing dying that there's no interaction between the 2 players.
^This. Just because there isn't some kind of insane back and forth battle doesn't mean the game wasn't really interesting. If anything, the lack of actual confrontation is the side effect of hundreds of minor interactions that are happening between players. The second most striking thing about this game is the game plan each player employs: The fact that Jaedong opens double upgraded lings into a potential ultralisk timing into a gigagntic BL/ultra army into multi-pronged harass with pressure into a muta switch is just gorgeous; Patience opens super heavy +1 phoenix harassment into a primarily ground army into a huge air army to counter the muta switch, and it's beautiful.
The transitions are seamless and make so much sense. Just because you don't see a ton of back and forth battles doesn't mean there wasn't anything going on. This game is super densely packed, I can't see it another way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
