|
On October 17 2010 00:46 imnotwearingpants wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 00:38 VikingKong wrote:On October 17 2010 00:36 applejuice wrote:On October 17 2010 00:30 VikingKong wrote:On October 17 2010 00:29 applejuice wrote:On October 17 2010 00:27 VikingKong wrote:
I like how people are blaming bnet 2.0 for mlg's internet dropping. Yeah, LAN would have let them keep playing, yeah, Blizzard should put it in, but going HURR DURR B.NET 2.0 SUCKS is retarded when it's MLG's internet that dropped. No. That's an absurd way of looking at it. I bow to your one-line explanation. Clearly you know best. Logic. I'm amazed I have to explain it. Internet always fails eventually no matter what. Blizzard did not provide LAN for their game. Internet goes down at a tournament. HMMMMM who is to blame here? Reading. I'm amazed I have to explain it. I don't understand why it's hard to understand that you can both support LAN play and blame Blizzard for not implementing it and also recognizing that it's not B.NET 2.0's fault for having that game be replayed. Viking, no offense, but reading your responses is like watching your left hand wrestle against your right hand going for the wall switch. Must. Stop. Light. It's like we all see that you see, but you're still struggling against your own answer within. 
What? How the fuck? Blizzard's decision NOT TO IMPLEMENT LAN is has functionally nothing to do with B.NET 2.0. If Blizzard wanted LAN, they could implement basically whenever they wanted. AND THEY SHOULD DO IT. But when you blame B.NET 2.0 for lack of lan or the game dropping instead of BLAMING BLIZZARD'S CHOICE OF NOT IMPLEMENTING LAN you're doing it fucking wrong.
|
On October 17 2010 00:48 Dexerion wrote:
The "magic box" makes Mutas way too good vs Thors. Maybe giving Thors an upgrade on splash radius would help.
Yeah, god forbid there'd be a unit that is good against Thors when 1) in larger numbers and 2) when micro'd properly.
|
On October 17 2010 00:47 PartyBiscuit wrote:
Lol Huk beats drewbie with a proxy!
WHAT I want to see this
|
On October 17 2010 00:48 Dexerion wrote:
The "magic box" makes Mutas way too good vs Thors. Maybe giving Thors an upgrade on splash radius would help.
Probably would break the unit, so better just to keep it the way it is now.
|
On October 17 2010 00:43 tieya wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 00:41 proxY_ wrote:
Mutas with bling is extremely strong, especially in conjunction with magic box on the thors. I'm not saying it's op or anything but I think we're going to start to seeing terrans complaining about it. u have to realize that idra is such a good player, not every single person can do this. he knows when to make mutas when to make drones and how many lings and blings to get. look at those three fights. did he just attack because he felt like it? no. qxc was caught WAY out of position and he got outplayed by idra. people have been doing this strat for months now
They have been doing it for months but the difference now is that the damage that terran can do early or threaten to do early to zerg is severely diminished post patch. It's going to be much harder for the terran to get in there and damage the zerg econ. We're going to see higher muta counts and higher bling counts because the zerg will be able to drone harder early. That's the difference.
Obviously because idrA is so good it compounds the effect. It's probably not OP but it's clearly very strong. idrA already said that he competent zergs shouldn't lose to terran in this patch but that may just be idrA being idrA.
|
Better than it looked, mass muta looks inevitable.
|
|
|
That drop from QxC would probably have killed the spawning pool and given him a huge advantage in 1.1.1
|
Hmm, Idra looks pretty behind... 2 Thors out as well as well as a raven and big bio ball
|
On October 17 2010 00:49 proxY_ wrote:
that may just be idrA being idrA.
That is a very common thing that applies to statements made by idrA
|
On October 17 2010 00:49 VikingKong wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 00:46 imnotwearingpants wrote:On October 17 2010 00:38 VikingKong wrote:On October 17 2010 00:36 applejuice wrote:On October 17 2010 00:30 VikingKong wrote:On October 17 2010 00:29 applejuice wrote:On October 17 2010 00:27 VikingKong wrote:
I like how people are blaming bnet 2.0 for mlg's internet dropping. Yeah, LAN would have let them keep playing, yeah, Blizzard should put it in, but going HURR DURR B.NET 2.0 SUCKS is retarded when it's MLG's internet that dropped. No. That's an absurd way of looking at it. I bow to your one-line explanation. Clearly you know best. Logic. I'm amazed I have to explain it. Internet always fails eventually no matter what. Blizzard did not provide LAN for their game. Internet goes down at a tournament. HMMMMM who is to blame here? Reading. I'm amazed I have to explain it. I don't understand why it's hard to understand that you can both support LAN play and blame Blizzard for not implementing it and also recognizing that it's not B.NET 2.0's fault for having that game be replayed. Viking, no offense, but reading your responses is like watching your left hand wrestle against your right hand going for the wall switch. Must. Stop. Light. It's like we all see that you see, but you're still struggling against your own answer within. What? How the fuck? Blizzard's decision NOT TO IMPLEMENT LAN is has functionally nothing to do with B.NET 2.0. If Blizzard wanted LAN, they could implement basically whenever they wanted. AND THEY SHOULD DO IT. But when you blame B.NET 2.0 for lack of lan or the game dropping instead of BLAMING BLIZZARD'S CHOICE OF NOT IMPLEMENTING LAN you're doing it fucking wrong.
B.net 2.0 will be so good that you won't need LAN. - Blizzard
|
Oh look, QXC goes hellion into fast expo. According to all the terran whiners this was a dead build.
|
hunter seeker missileeee omg!
|
Seeker missile. lol!
I still hope IdrA takes this. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On October 17 2010 00:51 Aylear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 00:49 VikingKong wrote:On October 17 2010 00:46 imnotwearingpants wrote:On October 17 2010 00:38 VikingKong wrote:On October 17 2010 00:36 applejuice wrote:On October 17 2010 00:30 VikingKong wrote:On October 17 2010 00:29 applejuice wrote:On October 17 2010 00:27 VikingKong wrote:
I like how people are blaming bnet 2.0 for mlg's internet dropping. Yeah, LAN would have let them keep playing, yeah, Blizzard should put it in, but going HURR DURR B.NET 2.0 SUCKS is retarded when it's MLG's internet that dropped. No. That's an absurd way of looking at it. I bow to your one-line explanation. Clearly you know best. Logic. I'm amazed I have to explain it. Internet always fails eventually no matter what. Blizzard did not provide LAN for their game. Internet goes down at a tournament. HMMMMM who is to blame here? Reading. I'm amazed I have to explain it. I don't understand why it's hard to understand that you can both support LAN play and blame Blizzard for not implementing it and also recognizing that it's not B.NET 2.0's fault for having that game be replayed. Viking, no offense, but reading your responses is like watching your left hand wrestle against your right hand going for the wall switch. Must. Stop. Light. It's like we all see that you see, but you're still struggling against your own answer within. What? How the fuck? Blizzard's decision NOT TO IMPLEMENT LAN is has functionally nothing to do with B.NET 2.0. If Blizzard wanted LAN, they could implement basically whenever they wanted. AND THEY SHOULD DO IT. But when you blame B.NET 2.0 for lack of lan or the game dropping instead of BLAMING BLIZZARD'S CHOICE OF NOT IMPLEMENTING LAN you're doing it fucking wrong. B.net 2.0 will be so good that you won't need LAN. - Blizzard
Which is Blizzard being retarded. Which is my point. Thanks for agreeing?
|
seeker missile for the banelings would be sweet.
|
He's waiting for the seeker missile to finish ofcourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
