|
On January 17 2011 20:46 Providence wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 20:40 sleepingdog wrote:On January 17 2011 20:24 Providence wrote:
is what easily comes to mind that I can find Thank's for the effort...but...really? I mean this game was played ages ago, demuslim made 3 rax ghosts. Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, I HAVE seen one gate stargate voidray play, but not: a) in a style that is not all-in b) recently c) successfully (MC tried it vs TOP and failed; one game of his 0-4) Sorry for being so jerky, but I've played with one gate stargate voidray a lot in the past and always found that I kinda had to outplay any terran going for 2 rax expo. What do you expect when you make the claim implying WhiteRa's never done it and believing others who have should have on hand stellar replays or VoDs to fit stringent criteria you never mentioned? Plus why would it matter if it's recent or not? For one I DID say he PIONEERED it, and two all the changes since then haven't made it an unviable strategy. I also recall MC v MarineKing on LostTemple where it was quite strong.
Sorry, but I expect when people make claims that they could back them up. Also I think I didn't quote you initially, but a guy who quoted "whitera did it all the time on saturday". And since I watched the homestory cup pretty much the whole time with the exception of a 2 hour running-break I was curious to which games these might have been.
Specificly to your argument: your claim that the "changes haven't made it unvaible" is kinda of an empty statement if there are no games saying otherwise. That's the same as saying NEXGenius pinoeered the 2 gate robo FE into fast colossi.....with the problem that everybody who does it nowadays just dies because people have figured out the timings.
Just because something has worked several months ago, doesn't mean it would work today. The criteria are hardly "stringent" - because what's so strange about recent games that aren't all-ins and where toss actually wins?
And yes, the build of MC vs MKP on LT was a stalker/voidray (semi-)allin off 3 gates.
If you don't see the implications of this: it would mean that voidray-openings are useless unless you go a one base attack. And that can't be the solution to PvT now, can it?
|
People need to realise it's not the all in itself that is an issue. The issue is the inability to make a comeback when an opponent does such a thing. I mean did anyone watch Jeadong vs Baby game in recent WL. It's a similar concept(taking eco risks vs timed aggression) to what happened today but difference was that Jaedong managed to not die straight away and from beautiful play he came back winning the game.
I don't think that's possible in SC2. Unless your opponent is Choyafou( ). SC2 just punishes you way to harshly.
|
On January 17 2011 20:49 affliction wrote:
"I can't believe people still believe there is even a shred of competitive play left in this game. Requiring end of tech tree to deal with tier 1 and 1.5 is retarded."
i agree with that
How are probes end of tech tree? Cause that's what Tester seemed to think could beat MM with stim.
|
It is pretty hilarious that some people (terrans I guess) label MC as a player that is only very good at doing one or two base timing attacks, but these games that we just saw are the perfect example why MC goes for the 4gate/ 2-3 gate voidray builds like 80% of the time in PvT.
It is not because he is afraid of going macro game againts any terran, it is because this is the only effective way to stop what MVP did to Tester in these first two games. You either kill the terran before he gets that imba one base timing push or make enough damage so that he cant do it effectively anymore.
So next time MC goes for 4gate/ 3gate voidrays/whatever against MVP for example, I really hope I wont see any "Oh well looks like MC is afraid to go macro game againts MVP" comments -.-.
|
On January 17 2011 20:53 Providence wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 20:49 affliction wrote:
"I can't believe people still believe there is even a shred of competitive play left in this game. Requiring end of tech tree to deal with tier 1 and 1.5 is retarded."
i agree with that How are probes end of tech tree? Cause that's what Tester seemed to think could beat MM with stim.
Is tester supposed to realistically tech to HT or colo off one base?
|
On January 17 2011 20:49 affliction wrote:
"I can't believe people still believe there is even a shred of competitive play left in this game. Requiring end of tech tree to deal with tier 1 and 1.5 is retarded."
i agree with that
Yes you need carriers and colossi to even have a chance at beating 1 marine 1 marauder and 1 scv.
Should I laugh or cry...?
|
On January 17 2011 20:38 Providence wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 20:36 Elefanto wrote:On January 17 2011 20:33 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:25 2l84that wrote:
I am not going to say MVP is a bad player (or thrash him like some other posters here), but I would have respected him more, if he showed us a macro game like the one he had against that zerg opponent in Ro16.(which was a sick match)
MVP is a good player with lots of skill, but neither rushin (ie 3 rd game), or all-ins (1st and 2nd ones) are barely skillful. I was expecting much more than this. IMHO this series was as lame as it gets.
And don't get me started on the skill issue by saying, "but he kited."
Half-decent plats can kite with stimmed MM balls, Oh god.
Actually, it takes a lot of skill to know when to all-in and when to not. In the first game Tester goes Nexus off of one gate before cyber core and MVP scouted it. Why would you not time an all in right as the expo finishes? Third game MVP macro'd way better than tester. I'm not sure what you're basing your comments off of Lol? Skill to know when to all-in? You wait until you got enough units and your wanted mix, a-click into enemy with scvs, if he was too greedy you'll win handily, if he has a big army, your chances are still fucking huge? Since all-ins seem to be so strong, we'll be seeing you in next season's GSL amiright?
So if you encounter someone who disagrees with your opinion you just say "go and do it better"?
Pretty sick debatting skills you got there.
But just to point some things out for you.
Game 2 on Xel'Naga.
That's a Build EVERY FUCKING DIAMOND CAN EXECUTE.
He opted for a blue-flame hellion drop after seeing tester going fast expand.
Legit response, it might win him the game right there if he gets 2/3 shots off.
It fails through fantastic defense by tester.
So you would assume tester is ahead, got his expansion running, deflected a teched
harass off of 1-base.
What is MVP doing so marvelous?
He sits in his base, builds his army consisting of ravens and banshees and marines / marauder with, pulls scvs and a-clicks into his enemy and still manages to CRUSH him.
What's tester supposed to do?
Get Colossi out asap and die even harder?
Get Storm after he had to go Robo for Observer?
I don't want to whine about TvP, i want to fucking point out how fucking ridiculous it is in this
game to get an expansion and beeing able to defend it.
There are easy to execute builds that demolish faster expansions when your enemy isn't playing
ten times better than you.
If you want to congratulate MVP for his "fantastic stratecial play", to go all-in with a push you know has a fucking huge winning chance without you playing better, just simply a-clicking, you have no clue about stracraft
|
I just find it so hillarious that expanding is considered greedy in a starcraft game.
|
On January 17 2011 20:56 ftd.rain wrote:
I just find it so hillarious that expanding is considered greedy in a starcraft game.
But when you do it fast and with nothing keeping an eye out for a terran poke in (which he could have shut down had he seen it), in a tournament, you're kind of asking for it.
|
On January 17 2011 20:56 ftd.rain wrote:
I just find it so hillarious that expanding is considered greedy in a starcraft game.
Expanding with only 1 or 2 units to back it up is greedy. Expanding in general isnt.
|
"I can't believe people still believe there is even a shred of competitive play left in this game. Requiring end of tech tree to deal with tier 1 and 1.5 is retarded."
I agree with that also... it's so lame
|
These Raven builds are extremely hard to hold off as a Protoss...I usually go 1 gate robo (MaNa Style) and get a quick observer and spot a bunker and think he's turtling so I fast expand. Observer gets killed because the raven comes out and marines shoot it down and Nexus just finished. Around the 10 minute mark, the MM push and Raven and SCVs and Banshee/Medivac/Hellion comes as well and Protoss is just screwed. Yes I understand that Protoss has to tech up but we have to tech all the way to Colossi/HTs just to survive against this aggressive push? If I see this beforehand, I'm suppose to stay on one base and build my army as well as tech all the up to HTs (research storm as well) and have to get charge as well due to concussive shells. Or get like 1 colossus with no range upgrade to have a shot at this. It's just stupid to me and that's why you see Protoss just 4 gate majority of the time. 4 gate happens before that 10 minute mark which seems to be the time Terran makes a push.
G3 - Tester had that coming....You don't want to leave an unprotected expo and that's what happens. I stalker/1 zealot/1 sentry is good enough to hold the 2 marauder 1 marine push. The 2 marauder/1 marine push is quite common b/c that's about when concussive is done researching. Tester wasn't playing like himself at all. Those 7-8 sentries were baller though lol
|
If it's so easy... why isn't everyone doing it? MVP is in the Ro4 lots while of Terrans failed.
He deserves at least some credit for devising the strategies he uses.
If Tester makes more sentries and less stalkers on XC and pulls probes he at least has a chance of holding it.
But I do agree that with current maps and the current metagame defending expansions is very tough; probably too tough.
|
On January 17 2011 20:52 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 20:46 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:40 sleepingdog wrote:On January 17 2011 20:24 Providence wrote:
is what easily comes to mind that I can find Thank's for the effort...but...really? I mean this game was played ages ago, demuslim made 3 rax ghosts. Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, I HAVE seen one gate stargate voidray play, but not: a) in a style that is not all-in b) recently c) successfully (MC tried it vs TOP and failed; one game of his 0-4) Sorry for being so jerky, but I've played with one gate stargate voidray a lot in the past and always found that I kinda had to outplay any terran going for 2 rax expo. What do you expect when you make the claim implying WhiteRa's never done it and believing others who have should have on hand stellar replays or VoDs to fit stringent criteria you never mentioned? Plus why would it matter if it's recent or not? For one I DID say he PIONEERED it, and two all the changes since then haven't made it an unviable strategy. I also recall MC v MarineKing on LostTemple where it was quite strong. Sorry, but I expect when people make claims that they could back them up. Also I think I didn't quote you initially, but a guy who quoted "whitera did it all the time on saturday". And since I watched the homestory cup pretty much the whole time with the exception of a 2 hour running-break I was curious to which games these might have been. Specificly to your argument: your claim that the "changes haven't made it unvaible" is kinda of an empty statement if there are no games saying otherwise. That's the same as saying NEXGenius pinoeered the 2 gate robo FE into fast colossi.....with the problem that everybody who does it nowadays just dies because people have figured out the timings. Just because something has worked several months ago, doesn't mean it would work today. The criteria are hardly "stringent" - because what's so strange about recent games that aren't all-ins and where toss actually wins? And yes, the build of MC vs MKP on LT was a stalker/voidray (semi-)allin off 3 gates. If you don't see the implications of this: it would mean that voidray-openings are useless unless you go a one base attack. And that can't be the solution to PvT now, can it?
The criteria are stringent considering you hadn't mentioned them prior, and specifically tied into WhiteRa. Since it seems you originally quoted someone else, I'll just leave it as having been miscommunication on the part of my entering a debate towards the end.
As for the LT game, he only continued to push the strategy because he had an opening to do so. I'm almost certain had he not, we would have expanded instead (and I'm almost certain the push was with zealot/VR heavier than stalkers). You mentioned having to outplay terran going 2rax expand when you go VR--are you implying there should be a build for PvT where you can actually play worse than your opponent and win? It just sounds to me that you're expecting a mild voidray attack should deal enough damage to cripple a Terran. It's like with any other strategy--the more you commit to the strategy, the more the strategy itself will win, but doing so means you're less likely to transition to lots of other strategies. You can't be focused and flexible at the same time. It would be like a zerg 6 pooling, and only making 2 lings so he can catch up on economy.
|
ah it's so embarassing to see the stupidity of so so many posts in here.
MVP played brilliant, he responded perfectly to Testers builds an won convincingly.
Why on earth shouldn't MVP play the same build 100 times in a row if it is the perfect counter to the build his enemy goes for 100 times in a row.
There is also no way you can compare MVP to bitbybitPrime. MVP attacked with 6 different type of units. And he wiped out testers forces with losing 50% while Tester lost 100%. His build was a counterplay to what Tester did. It wasn't just a blind all in without looking what the enemy was doing.
compared to chessplayers:
One chessplayers plays very risky, moving his pawns very far his opponents half etc.etc.
The other chessplayer saw that if he sacrifices a couple of his pieces, he will archieve a quick checkmate.
would you call him a cheesy player because he didn't go for a long exciting game?
Well obviously not.
Why should he do that. The game is about winning.
_____________
+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2011 20:56 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 20:38 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:36 Elefanto wrote:On January 17 2011 20:33 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:25 2l84that wrote:
I am not going to say MVP is a bad player (or thrash him like some other posters here), but I would have respected him more, if he showed us a macro game like the one he had against that zerg opponent in Ro16.(which was a sick match)
MVP is a good player with lots of skill, but neither rushin (ie 3 rd game), or all-ins (1st and 2nd ones) are barely skillful. I was expecting much more than this. IMHO this series was as lame as it gets.
And don't get me started on the skill issue by saying, "but he kited."
Half-decent plats can kite with stimmed MM balls, Oh god.
Actually, it takes a lot of skill to know when to all-in and when to not. In the first game Tester goes Nexus off of one gate before cyber core and MVP scouted it. Why would you not time an all in right as the expo finishes? Third game MVP macro'd way better than tester. I'm not sure what you're basing your comments off of Lol? Skill to know when to all-in? You wait until you got enough units and your wanted mix, a-click into enemy with scvs, if he was too greedy you'll win handily, if he has a big army, your chances are still fucking huge? Since all-ins seem to be so strong, we'll be seeing you in next season's GSL amiright? So if you encounter someone who disagrees with your opinion you just say "go and do it better"? Pretty sick debatting skills you got there. But just to point some things out for you. Game 2 on Xel'Naga. That's a Build EVERY FUCKING DIAMOND CAN EXECUTE. He opted for a blue-flame hellion drop after seeing tester going fast expand. Legit response, it might win him the game right there if he gets 2/3 shots off. It fails through fantastic defense by tester. So you would assume tester is ahead, got his expansion running, deflected a teched harass off of 1-base. What is MVP doing so marvelous? He sits in his base, builds his army consisting of ravens and banshees and marines / marauder with, pulls scvs and a-clicks into his enemy and still manages to CRUSH him. What's tester supposed to do? Get Colossi out asap and die even harder? Get Storm after he had to go Robo for Observer? I don't want to whine about TvP, i want to fucking point out how fucking ridiculous it is in this game to get an expansion and beeing able to defend it. There are easy to execute builds that demolish faster expansions when your enemy isn't playing ten times better than you. If you want to congratulate MVP for his "fantastic stratecial play", to go all-in with a push you know has a fucking huge winning chance without you playing better, just simply a-clicking, you have no clue about stracraft
hahaha one short remark I want to add:
PvT isn't imbalanced. If I go for a quick exp. as a Terran and Protoss 4gates - it's also nearly impossible to stop, if he places some FF behind my bunkers and kills my shit of. Think about it you fools before you cry about the imba Terran PDD and whatever.
|
On January 17 2011 21:03 Klive5ive wrote:
If it's so easy... why isn't everyone doing it? MVP is in the Ro4 lots while of Terrans failed.
He deserves at least some credit for devising the strategies he uses.
If Tester makes more sentries and less stalkers on XC and pulls probes he at least has a chance of holding it.
But I do agree that with current maps and the current metagame defending expansions is very tough; probably too tough.
Have you not watched the previous GSLs? Terran race is dominating (yes they haven't won yet) but look at the consistent placings and the number of Terrans to make it to Ro4/8?
I agree with your last statement...it feels like Protoss has to wait until Terran expands for Protoss expand.
|
A game has rules. As long as you're playing within the rules of the game, it's fair play.
I understand the frustration of getting destroyed by what seems to be a easily pulled off all-in.
But I also understand why Terran would not react otherwise, if he knows his opponent offers him an opportunity to win. What would you want him to do ?
Scout the FE and lay back peacefully while his opponent gets an economic advantage ? Wait for the oh so dreadful mid-game Protoss ball of death ?
It's a game of risk vs reward (as must every good game be, in my opinion). MVP risked it, and got rewarded. I'm not calling it a great inspiring play by any means, but who says it should be ?
|
On January 17 2011 20:56 ftd.rain wrote:
I just find it so hillarious that expanding is considered greedy in a starcraft game.
Because people like you forget that SC really is an economy game.
|
I think it's evolving, just throw away the imba talk, it would only be viable if it was mc x mvp
now about evolving
first it was mmm, then it got nullfied
then it was raven banshee mm it was king nullfied with 1/2 g star
now jinro almost completely mechanized and mvp added hellions (and a whole lot) so the zealot issue is kind nullfied
I dont see imbalance, I see inteligence in making up builds and unit composition .....
|
lol
when mc beat jinro 4-0 last season
every1 was like protoss is op
now mvp beat tester 3-0 and every1 is like terran is op
happens everytime
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
