|
On December 31 2010 03:57 Blyadischa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 03:41 cive wrote:On December 31 2010 03:32 Blyadischa wrote:Starcraft 2 = games like + Show Spoiler +Game 1: FE vs 1 Base All In
Game 2: FE vs 1 Base All In
Game 3: FE vs Bad semi-cheesy voidrays so MC expands, game actually goes into mid game, so both guys 1a into each others armies at the exact center of the map to see who wins
Game 4: Both players fast expand, then expand again, nothing happens until both players are on 3 base and protoss have HT. MC actually manages to hit BAD storms, and loses the game.
Terran had better executed builds (winning FE vs 4 gate and FE vs voidray harass) and protoss executed poorly to beat the protoss better, game 4 was kind of strategical, but the protoss would have won if not for his bad storms (execution)
I'm pretty sure thats how all RTS games are. You either choose to secure an economy thus making you defensive or choose to collect a sizable army that will break that defense at a certain time. I know for sure Starcraft Brood War was like this. Sometimes the deciding battles are more than one but could have been expressed exactly like what you wrote there. Is that a joke? Watch ANY OSL/MSL and tell me if you see 2 1 base all ins, then in another game failed cheesy harass, no action for 5 minutes, into 1a in the middle of the map, then for another game no action for 16 minutes, then one player killing his own units. The point I'm trying to make is that the current state of the game (unit balance/map size mostly) encourage 1 base all inning, cheesing, or macroing then having a single 1a into each others army in the middle of the map to decide the game
Flash versus Jaedong in Shinghai OSL. 2x 6 pool and a random proxy rax in a BO5
|
On December 31 2010 04:03 xbankx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 03:57 Blyadischa wrote:On December 31 2010 03:41 cive wrote:On December 31 2010 03:32 Blyadischa wrote:Starcraft 2 = games like + Show Spoiler +Game 1: FE vs 1 Base All In
Game 2: FE vs 1 Base All In
Game 3: FE vs Bad semi-cheesy voidrays so MC expands, game actually goes into mid game, so both guys 1a into each others armies at the exact center of the map to see who wins
Game 4: Both players fast expand, then expand again, nothing happens until both players are on 3 base and protoss have HT. MC actually manages to hit BAD storms, and loses the game.
Terran had better executed builds (winning FE vs 4 gate and FE vs voidray harass) and protoss executed poorly to beat the protoss better, game 4 was kind of strategical, but the protoss would have won if not for his bad storms (execution)
I'm pretty sure thats how all RTS games are. You either choose to secure an economy thus making you defensive or choose to collect a sizable army that will break that defense at a certain time. I know for sure Starcraft Brood War was like this. Sometimes the deciding battles are more than one but could have been expressed exactly like what you wrote there. Is that a joke? Watch ANY OSL/MSL and tell me if you see 2 1 base all ins, then in another game failed cheesy harass, no action for 5 minutes, into 1a in the middle of the map, then for another game no action for 16 minutes, then one player killing his own units. The point I'm trying to make is that the current state of the game (unit balance/map size mostly) encourage 1 base all inning, cheesing, or macroing then having a single 1a into each others army in the middle of the map to decide the game Flash versus Jaedong in Shinghai OSL. 2x 6 pool and a random proxy rax in a BO5
Anomaly caused by the players having playing against each other in too many long macro games that aren't 1 base all ins, failed semi cheesy harass, or 1as into each others armies
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On December 31 2010 03:46 ParasitJonte wrote:
Actually, on Shakuras I would consider MC's choice of build the worst possible VR opening against 1rax expand. Let me explain. Unless you are able to do severe economic damage with your VR (which never happens, realistically) the Terran has his expansion + orbital up significantly faster than you. So when you see that a Terran is going 1rax expand you need to pick one or the other - 1gateVR expo or 3gateVR pressure - the intermediate 2gate VR build is too indecisive to punish the greedy expand while not greedy enough to match Top's expand. The 1gateVR expand gives you a fighting chance in a macro game (using the VR to be annoying and killing what you can) wheras the 3gateVR almost always is able to offset any economic disadvantage through pressure (and often wins the game right there). 2gate VR works against a whole host of other builds though, so isn't a bad build, it just happens to be bad in this case.
From the economic deficit there really wasn't much MC can do except hope to win a battle - which never happened because Top was completely on top of his game with perfect concaves and excellent expansion timing. Really, his play couldn't be faulted.
|
On December 31 2010 03:00 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 02:39 PartyBiscuit wrote:
Serious question though, what did TOP do that was so different? The base trade was kind of a luck situation for game 1 so ignore that. The 2nd game was the standard Raven/Banshee push (more of a Jinro style than say Polt). The 3rd/4th game was standard MMM+vikings. I genuinely think that TOP had simply superior mechanics overall which won him the series as surprising as that sounds against MC. I really don't see it the same way. What you considered 'standard' only happened after Top had already secured an advantage by playing (also strategically) better not by being mechanically superior. In game 3 he got a big advantage by holding off the Void Rays brilliantly and having his expansion running safely way before MC did. Game 4 he countered with 6 marines which allowed him to get a quick gold expansion up and MC was fighting an uphill battle from that point on. MC never even got his gold up in that game I don't see how you can point at this games and say it was standard so mechanics must have made the difference. Every single game that lead up to standard armies Top went into that stage with an advantage due to strategy. Contrary to what many here believe losing 0-4 does not make Top the better and superior player. It makes him the better and superior player today. Nothing else. To really say something about who is better you need to look at a much larger sample of games.
Although I agree with everything I've written, I think the poster you quoted didn't mean "mechanics" in the sense we are used to this expression from broodwar but overall strategical gameplay and decisionmaking - I think what he has meant to say is, that Top didn't use any "new, innovative" strategies to overcome the (supposed/claimed) toss lategame imbalance. Instead he used what everybody else used: marauder/medivac/viking/ghost, just better, at least today.
This I genuinely think was the point he wanted to make, that Top showed that it is indeed very possible to outplay toss and win the game with the very standard unit-composition, especially without relying on some cutesy or even luck - contrary to what has recently been increasingly claimed by some terran-users here.
EDIT:
On December 31 2010 04:07 Plexa wrote:Actually, on Shakuras I would consider MC's choice of build the worst possible VR opening against 1rax expand. Let me explain. Unless you are able to do severe economic damage with your VR (which never happens, realistically) the Terran has his expansion + orbital up significantly faster than you. So when you see that a Terran is going 1rax expand you need to pick one or the other - 1gateVR expo or 3gateVR pressure - the intermediate 2gate VR build is too indecisive to punish the greedy expand while not greedy enough to match Top's expand. The 1gateVR expand gives you a fighting chance in a macro game (using the VR to be annoying and killing what you can) wheras the 3gateVR almost always is able to offset any economic disadvantage through pressure (and often wins the game right there). 2gate VR works against a whole host of other builds though, so isn't a bad build, it just happens to be bad in this case. From the economic deficit there really wasn't much MC can do except hope to win a battle - which never happened because Top was completely on top of his game with perfect concaves and excellent expansion timing. Really, his play couldn't be faulted.
Agree completely - a very simple rule that I found working perfectly when 1 gate stargating against MM-expand play (if you scout 1/1/1 you need early robotics against the possibility of cloak): just balance out the gateway/rax count compared to what your opponent is doing:
1 rax FE? go 1 gate stargate expand IMMEDIATELY (especially on maps like shakuras and scrap station where void rays really are annoying enough to prevent any super early pressure)
2 rax FE? add a 2nd gate before the expansion to have sufficient warp-in capabilities in case terran goes aggressive (had some semi-all-ins happening to me where terran pulled "some" SCVs and counted on doing enough damage to be ahead with 2 orbital mules - I found that I'm always forced to cancel if I throw down the nexus too early)
The build of MC played perfectly into the gaming-concept of Top....he got the early economic lead, didn't have to face a (semi) all-in with 4 gate or 3 gate void ray and MC didn't even harass the expansion: I'm sure players like Bisu, Stork etc. would be able to handle void ray harass at multiple locations that early in the game quite comfortably. As much as I love stargate openings vs Terran, this one unfortunately didn't pay off in the slightest.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On December 31 2010 04:06 Blyadischa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 04:03 xbankx wrote:On December 31 2010 03:57 Blyadischa wrote:On December 31 2010 03:41 cive wrote:On December 31 2010 03:32 Blyadischa wrote:Starcraft 2 = games like + Show Spoiler +Game 1: FE vs 1 Base All In
Game 2: FE vs 1 Base All In
Game 3: FE vs Bad semi-cheesy voidrays so MC expands, game actually goes into mid game, so both guys 1a into each others armies at the exact center of the map to see who wins
Game 4: Both players fast expand, then expand again, nothing happens until both players are on 3 base and protoss have HT. MC actually manages to hit BAD storms, and loses the game.
Terran had better executed builds (winning FE vs 4 gate and FE vs voidray harass) and protoss executed poorly to beat the protoss better, game 4 was kind of strategical, but the protoss would have won if not for his bad storms (execution)
I'm pretty sure thats how all RTS games are. You either choose to secure an economy thus making you defensive or choose to collect a sizable army that will break that defense at a certain time. I know for sure Starcraft Brood War was like this. Sometimes the deciding battles are more than one but could have been expressed exactly like what you wrote there. Is that a joke? Watch ANY OSL/MSL and tell me if you see 2 1 base all ins, then in another game failed cheesy harass, no action for 5 minutes, into 1a in the middle of the map, then for another game no action for 16 minutes, then one player killing his own units. The point I'm trying to make is that the current state of the game (unit balance/map size mostly) encourage 1 base all inning, cheesing, or macroing then having a single 1a into each others army in the middle of the map to decide the game Flash versus Jaedong in Shinghai OSL. 2x 6 pool and a random proxy rax in a BO5 Anomaly caused by the players having playing against each other in too many long macro games that aren't 1 base all ins, failed semi cheesy harass, or 1as into each others armies You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. How often do you see 3 hatch hydra all in vs Protoss FE? How often do you see SCV+rine bunker rushes against 14 Nexus Protoss? Further, your analysis of the MC-Top series shows you have zero comprehension of SC2 as such a drastic simplification of the games is impossible. I mean, did you even notice the cloak cancel in game 2? Top saw what MC was up to and reacted to it perfectly.
|
Well.. oGsMC already won one bo7 (all games play'd), then beat 3 players in a row in bo3's in Gisado's tour on Gomtv and afterwards, without any real break had to play TOP in a bo7 for Kaspersky.
Might we assume MC being sleightly tired ? (Im not saying he would have won otherwise, just stating it might make a difference between 2-4 and 0-4 in score - what seems like an even series and what seems like an "Asswhooping")
|
Not a suprise: 2 korean progamers in finals.
A suprise: Top 4-0s MC in TvP. TOP is clearly good but I think the fact they are teammates plays into it since if anyone knows the holes in MCs stellar TvP it would be his teammates.
|
Rumors from Korea are saying that it was MC's cat who was playing in these games.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Ultimately the last two games boil down to 1rax FE giving Top a significant economic lead and MC playing catchup for the rest of the game. The first game basically game down to a decision making, micro and luck. The 2nd game was Top getting a good read on MC and changing up his build to hard counter what MC was up to.
|
Anyone know where I can the those ZvZ (Ret vs Zenio) replays from?
|
|
|
On December 31 2010 02:02 Alphaes wrote:
This Marauder + Ghost composition seemed to have worked quite well. Interesting last game.
this is probably the most brutal combo for PvT. Not sure what the counter is except perfect pre-emptive feedbacks on the ghost?
|
|
|
The thing is Top never stood on 2 bases, each time he took a relativly early third and fourth. Too bad the stream I watched never showed his base after he took his third, I wonder how many raxes he had.
Still some small mistakes from both, ie in game 4 MC had an obs on the middle of the map when he made some storm snipe on the marauders : but Top had 2 FULL ENERGY medivacs, so the storm did nothing (because of heal) and MC could have one shooted both medivacs with feedbacks, then he could have stormed and made a lot of damage.
At the same moment, Top was storm-sniped he should have understood he was observed, he didn't scan until very late game.
But that game was really good, Top attacking everywhere was fun to see, and MC defended well the first few assaults.
Good serie overall, but imo MC wasn't at his full skill level, he is more solid usualy. Or perhaps Top's builds are designed to be solid against MC's aggro openings. Interresting still, thanx Kapersky.
|
On December 31 2010 04:07 Plexa wrote:Actually, on Shakuras I would consider MC's choice of build the worst possible VR opening against 1rax expand. Let me explain. Unless you are able to do severe economic damage with your VR (which never happens, realistically) the Terran has his expansion + orbital up significantly faster than you. So when you see that a Terran is going 1rax expand you need to pick one or the other - 1gateVR expo or 3gateVR pressure - the intermediate 2gate VR build is too indecisive to punish the greedy expand while not greedy enough to match Top's expand. The 1gateVR expand gives you a fighting chance in a macro game (using the VR to be annoying and killing what you can) wheras the 3gateVR almost always is able to offset any economic disadvantage through pressure (and often wins the game right there). 2gate VR works against a whole host of other builds though, so isn't a bad build, it just happens to be bad in this case. From the economic deficit there really wasn't much MC can do except hope to win a battle - which never happened because Top was completely on top of his game with perfect concaves and excellent expansion timing. Really, his play couldn't be faulted.
I somewhat agree with you. But I shy away from giving too much criticism to MC because everytime he does his aggressive play I say to myself: "I would never do that..." and then he somehow wins.
But I would never play the way he did on Shakuras. Just, it's hard to tell MC "you can't do that with 3 void rays". Because he'll punch you and do it...
|
|
|
it's weird because you see MC destroy most 1rax FE builds but loses against TOP 3/4 times. I'm guessing the difference is with players going reactor before tech or on their 2nd rax which puts them too far behind in unit production to hold off 4 gate pressure. In all games TOP went c-shell -> shields -> stim
|
Russian Federation899 Posts
added both Lonely's and SeR3NiTy's links to the latest replay packs in the OP. Enjoy and Happy New Year everybody :D
P.S. Thanks for the tournament and great organisation <3
|
On December 31 2010 03:00 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2010 02:39 PartyBiscuit wrote:
Serious question though, what did TOP do that was so different? The base trade was kind of a luck situation for game 1 so ignore that. The 2nd game was the standard Raven/Banshee push (more of a Jinro style than say Polt). The 3rd/4th game was standard MMM+vikings. I genuinely think that TOP had simply superior mechanics overall which won him the series as surprising as that sounds against MC. I really don't see it the same way. What you considered 'standard' only happened after Top had already secured an advantage by playing (also strategically) better not by being mechanically superior. In game 3 he got a big advantage by holding off the Void Rays brilliantly and having his expansion running safely way before MC did. Game 4 he countered with 6 marines which allowed him to get a quick gold expansion up and MC was fighting an uphill battle from that point on. MC never even got his gold up in that game I don't see how you can point at this games and say it was standard so mechanics must have made the difference. Every single game that lead up to standard armies Top went into that stage with an advantage due to strategy. Contrary to what many here believe losing 0-4 does not make Top the better and superior player. It makes him the better and superior player today. Nothing else. To really say something about who is better you need to look at a much larger sample of games.
so any chance you will share your idea with us about who has been performing better recently? I never really took notice of Top before kaspersky's tournament and he didnt seem that extremely good in his match against zenio, so i was quite surprised to see him perform so well against mc
|
On December 31 2010 04:22 Plexa wrote:
Ultimately the last two games boil down to 1rax FE giving Top a significant economic lead and MC playing catchup for the rest of the game. The first game basically game down to a decision making, micro and luck. The 2nd game was Top getting a good read on MC and changing up his build to hard counter what MC was up to.
I agree except I feel like game 2 MC should've been able to defend just barely if he had engaged properly. Meaning zealots in front rather than being clumped up in the back, engaging at the smallest choke, and casting better force fields.
Probably gonna take a look at game 1 later on since I missed that game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
