|
On July 19 2010 13:41 SiguR wrote:
I'd like to take a moment and break from the conversation and point out how good the casting was from day9.
It was accurate, it was professional, and it was articulate. I haven't had a ton of exposure to Day9's casting, and i've gotta say, he is one of the best casters i've had the pleasure to listen to.
Agreed. Very excellent cast despite the lag issues in the first couple games. Looking forward to the games to come. Also hoping for some BM rage from you know who 
|
On July 19 2010 13:41 SiguR wrote:
I'd like to take a moment and break from the conversation and point out how good the casting was from day9.
It was accurate, it was professional, and it was articulate. I haven't had a ton of exposure to Day9's casting, and i've gotta say, he is one of the best casters i've had the pleasure to listen to.
Aside from the fact that he obviously lives in a time/space-disruption where 10 seconds last at least double/triple that time. 
But yeah, awesome cast, one might say - "as always" ^^
Definitely worth adjusting the alarm at 4 am in the morning.
|
On July 19 2010 13:39 Mattes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 13:32 Sfydjklm wrote:
i think the notion that close game is a good game is the most accurate one, since in most cases it is hard for a casual to comprehend whether a game was educational or not if its just a one sided rape.` Like said above, that boils down to your own definition of good. If good is any indicator of quality than that is often incorrect. I had so many close games, and the were _by far_ not remotely good games. :D I'd say: A close game = an entertaining game (that far i think we all agree) Entertainment = good (in a way of beeing entertained and having a good time) Really good players = good (in a way of seeing high class play that does not necessary has to be close) I think a game can be entertaining even if its one-sided, if it has some highly educational character, or just some perfect execution of strategy abc (which essentially comes down to educational value again). For casuals, of youre, close and with lots of "bang bumm *explode*" is mosty considered: Good Game
Often times it takes an expert commentator like Day to make you realize that a game taht you first perceived as bad is actually good. Good is an iffy term, and 99% of the time when people say good they mean entertaining. Iloveoov was good, while not entertaining and if you didnt know who he was you'd prolly disregard him as just another no skill turtler noobie(somewhat reminiscent of the turtling accusations towards TLO? i recall a thread i saw recently about what makes Flash build a flash build and how it is different from other terrans, while the casuals argued that it is just named after Flash cos flash was the most succesfull with it.) The truth is, you wont know if TLO's play on SoW was creative or not- neither those who say it wasn't nor those who say it was- until someone like Day comes out and tells you the truth.
At that level of play creativity is often in small details.
//edit: @that idra-notion: Sure, you have you picture of idrA in your head, but i think in the HDH Semifinals, when he "doomdropped" NonY, that wasn't expected. Was that creative because its something you wouldn't think of, hearing "idrA" ?
Idra's doomdrop on Nony altered how ZvP is played a lot. It was perhaps not creative but a pioneering thing to do for sure.
|
first series uploaded
second set almost done
|
amidst of it all, great casting as always day.
|
On July 19 2010 12:48 reza wrote:
you're asking me how many people sit back and turtle with 15 siege tanks at their choke..rendering the enemies ground force useless ..and than pump out 8-10 BC's from two starports?? Really? Is that what creative is nowadays?
TLO actually was not turtling. If you actually bothered to pay attention to the match rather than rage in chat, you would have noticed that TLO was, in fact, out expanding HuK on Steppes of War. The player who is out-expanding his opponent is not a turtler.
On July 19 2010 12:57 reza wrote:
People like to throw down the word 'creativity' around too easily. Creativity was boxer and his amazing micro in his prime.. not a tech switch to battlecruisers while turtling with tanks at your choke point. Oh how i miss those days..
TLO did not "tech switch" into BCs. There was no "switch" involved at all. He already had the Starport + tech lab and was making lots of Ravens. He just needed the necessary number of bases to provide a good flow of income to maintain constant BC production. He merely transitioned into BCs; he didn't do something like go bio and switch to a different tech tree like mech, abandoning his bio buildings.
I don't really care if TLO was "creative" or not. Both players put on a great match and played damn well, which is what matters.
|
Poor showing by dimaga IMO, especially in the steppes game where he 1a'd his roaches into a ramp with bunkers and sieged tanks.
|
On July 19 2010 14:42 RandomBS wrote:
Poor showing by dimaga IMO, especially in the steppes game where he 1a'd his roaches into a ramp with bunkers and sieged tanks.
agreed I dunno wtf he was smoking with that 2nd attack....def wasn't playing like there's 2000$ on the line. Pro bunker placement tho
|
can we get the replays anywhere?
|
On July 19 2010 14:42 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 12:48 reza wrote:
you're asking me how many people sit back and turtle with 15 siege tanks at their choke..rendering the enemies ground force useless ..and than pump out 8-10 BC's from two starports?? Really? Is that what creative is nowadays? TLO actually was not turtling. If you actually bothered to pay attention to the match rather than rage in chat, you would have noticed that TLO was, in fact, out expanding HuK on Steppes of War. The player who is out-expanding his opponent is not a turtler. Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 12:57 reza wrote:
People like to throw down the word 'creativity' around too easily. Creativity was boxer and his amazing micro in his prime.. not a tech switch to battlecruisers while turtling with tanks at your choke point. Oh how i miss those days.. TLO did not "tech switch" into BCs. There was no "switch" involved at all. He already had the Starport + tech lab and was making lots of Ravens. He just needed the necessary number of bases to provide a good flow of income to maintain constant BC production. He merely transitioned into BCs; he didn't do something like go bio and switch to a different tech tree like mech, abandoning his bio buildings. I don't really care if TLO was "creative" or not. Both players put on a great match and played damn well, which is what matters.
What are you talking about there was no 'switch' involved at all. The whole point of the argument is that I disagree that transitioning to BC's is creative and i question the fact that he did especially after having a distinctive advantage. If there was no switch involved at all we wouldn't be arguing the fact that his play was 'creative'. And I think you need to watch the game again, because there was definitely some degree of turtling going on.
|
On July 19 2010 14:58 reza wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 14:42 javy925 wrote:On July 19 2010 12:48 reza wrote:
you're asking me how many people sit back and turtle with 15 siege tanks at their choke..rendering the enemies ground force useless ..and than pump out 8-10 BC's from two starports?? Really? Is that what creative is nowadays? TLO actually was not turtling. If you actually bothered to pay attention to the match rather than rage in chat, you would have noticed that TLO was, in fact, out expanding HuK on Steppes of War. The player who is out-expanding his opponent is not a turtler. On July 19 2010 12:57 reza wrote:
People like to throw down the word 'creativity' around too easily. Creativity was boxer and his amazing micro in his prime.. not a tech switch to battlecruisers while turtling with tanks at your choke point. Oh how i miss those days.. TLO did not "tech switch" into BCs. There was no "switch" involved at all. He already had the Starport + tech lab and was making lots of Ravens. He just needed the necessary number of bases to provide a good flow of income to maintain constant BC production. He merely transitioned into BCs; he didn't do something like go bio and switch to a different tech tree like mech, abandoning his bio buildings. I don't really care if TLO was "creative" or not. Both players put on a great match and played damn well, which is what matters. What are you talking about there was no 'switch' involved at all. The whole point of the argument is that I disagree that transitioning to BC's is creative and i question the fact that he did especially after having a distinctive advantage. If there was no switch involved at all we wouldn't be arguing the fact that his play was 'creative'. And I think you need to watch the game again, because there was definitely some degree of turtling going on.
exactly, there was no switch. That is EXACTLY what I said in the first line of that paragraph. I was responding to your quote where YOU said it was a "tech switch."
Also, yes, there was some turtling going on but the way you stated it made it seem as if he was sitting on one base with mass tanks and bunkers. You overstated the extent to which TLO "turtled." All I'm saying is that the way his tanks were positioned was a very good idea considering he had to cover THREE bases. When you have an immobile army like that you can't just wander around the entire map. It's very easy for you, as a spectator, to complain why isn't he attacking. The player and the spectator don't see the same things.
|
On July 19 2010 15:02 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 14:58 reza wrote:On July 19 2010 14:42 javy925 wrote:On July 19 2010 12:48 reza wrote:
you're asking me how many people sit back and turtle with 15 siege tanks at their choke..rendering the enemies ground force useless ..and than pump out 8-10 BC's from two starports?? Really? Is that what creative is nowadays? TLO actually was not turtling. If you actually bothered to pay attention to the match rather than rage in chat, you would have noticed that TLO was, in fact, out expanding HuK on Steppes of War. The player who is out-expanding his opponent is not a turtler. On July 19 2010 12:57 reza wrote:
People like to throw down the word 'creativity' around too easily. Creativity was boxer and his amazing micro in his prime.. not a tech switch to battlecruisers while turtling with tanks at your choke point. Oh how i miss those days.. TLO did not "tech switch" into BCs. There was no "switch" involved at all. He already had the Starport + tech lab and was making lots of Ravens. He just needed the necessary number of bases to provide a good flow of income to maintain constant BC production. He merely transitioned into BCs; he didn't do something like go bio and switch to a different tech tree like mech, abandoning his bio buildings. I don't really care if TLO was "creative" or not. Both players put on a great match and played damn well, which is what matters. What are you talking about there was no 'switch' involved at all. The whole point of the argument is that I disagree that transitioning to BC's is creative and i question the fact that he did especially after having a distinctive advantage. If there was no switch involved at all we wouldn't be arguing the fact that his play was 'creative'. And I think you need to watch the game again, because there was definitely some degree of turtling going on. exactly, there was no switch. That is EXACTLY what I said in the first line of that paragraph. I was responding to your quote where YOU said it was a "tech switch." Also, yes, there was some turtling going on but the way you stated it made it seem as if he was sitting on one base with mass tanks and bunkers. You overstated the extent to which TLO "turtled." All I'm saying is that the way his tanks were positioned was a very good idea considering he had to cover THREE bases. When you have an immobile army like that you can't just wander around the entire map. It's very easy for you, as a spectator, to complain why isn't he attacking. The player and the spectator don't see the same things.
I don't think you comprehend the term ..'tech' switch. liquipedia it and come back to me. Thank you.
|
On July 19 2010 11:49 LaLuSh wrote:
Dimaga isn't very confident against terrans. I don't blame him. Pretty much impossible unless you take a couple of chances that go your way, or guess/scout every tech transition.
I'd have liked to see Sen in this tournament. He's an animal and the only zerg in the world who can play straight up ZvT and get away with it. Only zerg I've actually seen make a comeback from being at a disadvantage in ZvT.
What about idra ?
|
On July 19 2010 15:22 reza wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 15:02 javy925 wrote:On July 19 2010 14:58 reza wrote:On July 19 2010 14:42 javy925 wrote:On July 19 2010 12:48 reza wrote:
you're asking me how many people sit back and turtle with 15 siege tanks at their choke..rendering the enemies ground force useless ..and than pump out 8-10 BC's from two starports?? Really? Is that what creative is nowadays? TLO actually was not turtling. If you actually bothered to pay attention to the match rather than rage in chat, you would have noticed that TLO was, in fact, out expanding HuK on Steppes of War. The player who is out-expanding his opponent is not a turtler. On July 19 2010 12:57 reza wrote:
People like to throw down the word 'creativity' around too easily. Creativity was boxer and his amazing micro in his prime.. not a tech switch to battlecruisers while turtling with tanks at your choke point. Oh how i miss those days.. TLO did not "tech switch" into BCs. There was no "switch" involved at all. He already had the Starport + tech lab and was making lots of Ravens. He just needed the necessary number of bases to provide a good flow of income to maintain constant BC production. He merely transitioned into BCs; he didn't do something like go bio and switch to a different tech tree like mech, abandoning his bio buildings. I don't really care if TLO was "creative" or not. Both players put on a great match and played damn well, which is what matters. What are you talking about there was no 'switch' involved at all. The whole point of the argument is that I disagree that transitioning to BC's is creative and i question the fact that he did especially after having a distinctive advantage. If there was no switch involved at all we wouldn't be arguing the fact that his play was 'creative'. And I think you need to watch the game again, because there was definitely some degree of turtling going on. exactly, there was no switch. That is EXACTLY what I said in the first line of that paragraph. I was responding to your quote where YOU said it was a "tech switch." Also, yes, there was some turtling going on but the way you stated it made it seem as if he was sitting on one base with mass tanks and bunkers. You overstated the extent to which TLO "turtled." All I'm saying is that the way his tanks were positioned was a very good idea considering he had to cover THREE bases. When you have an immobile army like that you can't just wander around the entire map. It's very easy for you, as a spectator, to complain why isn't he attacking. The player and the spectator don't see the same things. I don't think you comprehend the term ..'tech' switch. liquipedia it and come back to me. Thank you.
LOL. So first you say there was a switch. Then you respond to my post saying that there wasn't a switch. Now you're saying there was a switch? Which is it?
|
Rainbow's play was amazingly effective yet subtle. Dimaga chose to power military over econ in the first game, and Rainbow reacted accordingly and naturally, forcing Dimaga's hand. Honestly both players were not given enough credit, as I really liked Dimaga's strong rushdown opener with many roaches and zerglings.
|
honestly huk played really bad in the last two games. in game 1 it was great but largely due to map, TLO also picked a terrible map to FE on (that backdoor makes it way too difficult). G2 HUK just played like crap doing a poor job of letting hellion run by's and late expanding. it was close but at the sametime TLO never was really threatened past the midgame. he was playing from behind almost the whole game. Game 3 was disastrous TLO won with standard banshee harass. really unfortunate that worked so well. i think he honestly made poor tech choices anyways. TLo is a tough dude though cuz his strategies are not common so often its abusing a player being confused on how to deal with something.
|
|
|
Are these games streamed lived or were all games pre-recorded?
|
Really? This is the first I've heard about it. You should make a thread about it.
|
On July 19 2010 15:38 dbddbddb wrote:
Are these games streamed lived or were all games pre-recorded?
The matches were not played live but the finals will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
