EPTRazer King of the Beta by Day[9] - Page 75
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
scottyyy
United Kingdom796 Posts
| ||
|
Piski
Finland3461 Posts
Everyone just plays in a different style. | ||
|
Piski
Finland3461 Posts
On July 22 2010 06:24 scottyyy wrote: Has Day mentioned when he's going to be uploading the first game of Whitera vs Dimaga? Sorry if it's been asked but I'm trying to avoid reading the thread too much because of spoilers. There has been any info about that. I would like to know too  I hope that Day9 would at least posted something. If it's corrupted then I would just watch the other ones, but know I'm just waiting it to be uploaded | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Watching the game I thought it was probably a bad move NOT to go all in. What I mean by that is he chose to expand again. The All-in move would have been to take his second gas and pump roaches instead of lings. I have a feeling that would have made the game even easier for him than it was. | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
Now when Dimage wins using such a strategy vs. White-Ra my guess is that people project their ideas of fair-play on White-Ra and feel sorry for him, even if White-Ra can't possibly hold some kind of a grudge against Dimaga for using an aggressive strategy, because both play to win. The actual definition of cheese isn't anything like what it is used for in the above paragraph anyway, so it's at the very least sloppy to use it that way. | ||
|
rawr-
Denmark28 Posts
| ||
|
Bibbit
Canada5377 Posts
On July 22 2010 06:29 kajeus wrote: Dimaga plays risky, but it's not really "all-in" necessarily, and it's definitely not cheese. It's just tons of early aggression. I infinitely prefer his style to Idra's. Idra is so boring. How is making lings/banelings exclusively on one base while not teching vs a 2 base toss not all-in? Part of the game either way but still. :/ | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On July 22 2010 06:48 Bibbit wrote: How is making lings/banelings exclusively on one base while not teching vs a 2 base toss not all-in? Part of the game either way but still. :/ how do you define an all-in? if you do enough damage with it that you even up the economies but you don't actually win the game right there, was it still an all-in? to me, an all-in is when you gg out if you don't win the game on that attack because there's inherently no hope of coming back anyone know whether wr vs dimaga game 1 is still to be uploaded? | ||
|
Bibbit
Canada5377 Posts
On July 22 2010 06:52 theqat wrote: how do you define an all-in? if you do enough damage with it that you even up the economies but you don't actually win the game right there, was it still an all-in? to me, an all-in is when you gg out if you don't win the game on that attack because there's inherently no hope of coming back anyone know whether wr vs dimaga game 1 is still to be uploaded? If you do enough damage to even up the economies but don't actually win, I would still call that an all-in. Just a successful one. Something is all-in because you're putting everything you have in an effort to get back in the game/win outright and failing to do so will mean you're dead. By your definition, it seems like there's no such thing as a successful all-in. | ||
|
Tenrou
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On July 22 2010 06:59 Bibbit wrote: If you do enough damage to even up the economies but don't actually win, I would still call that an all-in. Just a successful one. Something is all-in because you're putting everything you have in an effort to get back in the game/win outright and failing to do so will mean you're dead. By your definition, it seems like there's no such thing as a successful all-in. no, it's just that only attacking with literally everything you have (including workers) is an all-in. people drastically overuse the term | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
An indisputable all-in would seem to be something that you simply can't come back from if it doesn't outright win you the game. But this terminology seems so awkward when you think about it. How is something an all-in if you expand afterwards? How is something not an all-in if you're at a huge disadvantage when your army gets squashed? (When are you NOT at a huge disadvantage after your army gets squashed?) | ||
|
Bibbit
Canada5377 Posts
On July 22 2010 07:03 theqat wrote: no, it's just that only attacking with literally everything you have (including workers) is an all-in. people drastically overuse the term So in the game on Steppes, if Dimaga wasn't able to break the front when he did, he would still have a chance in the game? He had like half the workers of Whitera, no expansion, and no way to deal with the Stargate that was coming up. If his attack failed, he would have lost. And that's what I would call an all-in. All-in is not really that overused compared to some other terms but I will say that people use it as if it's cheating or something more often than they should. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On July 22 2010 07:09 kajeus wrote: It just seems strange to call it an all-in if he ended up expanding several times as a result of it. Early aggression that you sacrificed economic power to execute does not need to be all-in. You just made an economic power-aggressive power trade-off. An indisputable all-in would seem to be something that you simply can't come back from if it doesn't outright win you the game. But this terminology seems so awkward when you think about it. How is something an all-in if you expand afterwards? How is something not an all-in if you're at a huge disadvantage when your army gets squashed? (When are you NOT at a huge disadvantage after your army gets squashed?) It was all-in in the sense that he would lose 100% if he didn't break through White-Ra's defenses. | ||
|
GhoSt[shield]
Canada2131 Posts
| ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
Thanks! | ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On July 22 2010 07:47 Severedevil wrote: It was all-in in the sense that he would lose 100% if he didn't break through White-Ra's defenses. exactly. a all-in is a move that needs to either win right there or do serious dmg to equal the playing field to stay in the game. when you put evrything on one card and need it to do something or be so far behind that you pretty much lost its all-in. makes sense and perfectly fits the poker term. and i dont think anyone would argue that if he hadnt busted the wall he wouldve been in a unwinnable situation. I guess whitera did an allin wall-off. If it fails to hold, he loses. But seriously, I wouldn't call this an all-in, just early aggression. early aggression has a follow up if it fails. dimaga had no follow up and put evrything on a single attack. | ||
|
dagene
United States75 Posts
efb | ||
| ||
