EPT[GSTL] Day 3 - Semifinals - Page 86
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
| ||
|
fub
Netherlands47 Posts
 Its on the tip of my tongue but I cant recall.. so annoying. Its probably has been asked before but hey.. | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
| ||
|
trollparty
Australia74 Posts
| ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On February 09 2011 23:09 TheBB wrote: @OP ... what's wrong with bolding? My thoughts exactly. Kind of a baffling results format. | ||
|
rysecake
United States2632 Posts
| ||
|
PartyBiscuit
Canada4525 Posts
On February 09 2011 23:01 zerious wrote: + Show Spoiler + IMLosirA > ZeNEXByun IMLosirA < ZeNEXKyrix IMYongHwa > ZeNEXKryix IMYongHwa > ZeNEXNuke IMYongHwa > ZeNEXFFMon Quoting the results of IM v ZeNEX so easier for a mod to see. Btw, since OP went to sleep what were the recommended games from the series anyone? | ||
|
smileyyy
Germany1816 Posts
On February 09 2011 23:24 PartyBiscuit wrote: Quoting the results of IM v ZeNEX so easier for a mod to see. Btw, since OP went to sleep what were the recommended games from the series anyone? + Show Spoiler + Poll: Would you recommend Set 1 IM_LosirA VS ZeNEXByun ? Yes (89) If you have time (7) No (4) 100 total votes Your vote: Would you recommend Set 1 IM_LosirA VS ZeNEXByun ? Poll: Would you recommend Set 2 IM_LosirA VS ZeNEX_Kyrix No (24) If you have time (20) Yes (16) 60 total votes Your vote: Would you recommend Set 2 IM_LosirA VS ZeNEX_Kyrix Poll: Would you recommend Set 3 IM_YongHwa VS ZeNEX_Kyrix ? (CREVASSE) Yes (62) If you have time (16) No (13) 91 total votes Your vote: Would you recommend Set 3 IM_YongHwa VS ZeNEX_Kyrix ? (CREVASSE) Poll: Would you recommend IM_YongWha VS ZeNEX_Nuke ? Yes (41) If you have time (19) No (6) 66 total votes Your vote: Would you recommend IM_YongWha VS ZeNEX_Nuke ? Poll: Would you recommend Set 5 IM_YongHwa vs ZeNEX_FFMON ? Yes (16) If you have time (12) No (11) 39 total votes Your vote: Would you recommend Set 5 IM_YongHwa vs ZeNEX_FFMON ? | ||
|
Pelopidas
Canada225 Posts
| ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On February 09 2011 22:41 TheCrow wrote: You don't... not if your player wins three matches and looses his fourth. Should you be sending in a new player every time the opponent changes to set up his settings? Also I am pretty sure the team studies the style of the opponent and chooses the next player after having seen his whole style of play. QTF. It's much more logical to wait for the match is over and decide who's going next. You need to account not only the player, but the next map you are going to play. There're players who are comfortable with this map, but not that map. What you suggest would just lead to "Oh its a P, then we send a T". The irony is out of 17 TvP matches in GSTL, Terran only won 4 lolz. | ||
|
Krehlmar
Sweden1149 Posts
On February 09 2011 23:23 rysecake wrote: Wonder why everyone here is such a stickler to 5 base macro games. As much as I love a good macro game, I can't deny that I like incredible micro even more. If someone can pull of a rush using only marines or void rays, etc and win the game in under 6 minutes then I'm not sure why playersl ike that are being insulted so much. Because after 19 SCV rushes and 591 fourgates it gets fucking boring. People (and by people I mean trolls and idiots) should really stop making the assumption that Macro means "boring 20 minute buildup to 1 minute fight game": That is not the godamn case. The reason SC1 is a prove of skill somewhat more than SC2 is at the moment is because in SC1 the pro's have huge macro AND micro skills. They produce out of shitloads of buildings, have 9 bases and are constantly fighting at minimum of 2 locations. Sc2 has not evolved far enough for this skill level to be achieved, but there are some rare games where this has happend. I saw a IdrA ZvZ where the fight for the middle seriously lasted for 8 minutes. Both Z had 6 bases and were spewing out units by the huge amounts available out of 5 hatcheries with larve (the sixth was island expand). TLDR: Macro means a great economy and unit producing capacity, aswell as the strategy to USE THESE RESOURCES WELL meaning: Fighting, alot of godamn preasure, drops and fighting. Macro is NOT boring ass buildup games where 1 fight happens and then one side won; That is just players not having evolved beyond the need of a basic deathball army. | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
| ||
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
On February 09 2011 23:58 Krehlmar wrote: Because after 19 SCV rushes and 591 fourgates it gets fucking boring. People (and by people I mean trolls and idiots) should really stop making the assumption that Macro means "boring 20 minute buildup to 1 minute fight game": That is not the godamn case. The reason SC1 is a prove of skill somewhat more than SC2 is at the moment is because in SC1 the pro's have huge macro AND micro skills. They produce out of shitloads of buildings, have 9 bases and are constantly fighting at minimum of 2 locations. Sc2 has not evolved far enough for this skill level to be achieved, but there are some rare games where this has happend. I saw a IdrA ZvZ where the fight for the middle seriously lasted for 8 minutes. Both Z had 6 bases and were spewing out units by the huge amounts available out of 5 hatcheries with larve (the sixth was island expand). TLDR: Macro means a great economy and unit producing capacity, aswell as the strategy to USE THESE RESOURCES WELL meaning: Fighting, alot of godamn preasure, drops and fighting. Macro is NOT boring ass buildup games where 1 fight happens and then one side won; That is just players not having evolved beyond the need of a basic deathball army. Macro is a term we use for building units, keeping minerals and gass low, not getting supply blocked and able to expand a lot. What you are saying with pressure and stuff doesn't make sense. What you mean is multitasking (harrashing) with a heavy accent on macro. | ||
|
RagnaBaby
Philippines31 Posts
On February 10 2011 00:25 norlock wrote: Macro is a term we use for building units, keeping minerals and gass low, not getting supply blocked and able to expand a lot. What you are saying with pressure and stuff doesn't make sense. What you mean is multitasking (harrashing) with a heavy accent on macro. haha you nailed it! Krehlmar trying to look like he knows the term, but got it wrong. I still prefer micro intense games, rush or no rush. just some cool moves! | ||
|
Doughboy
United States721 Posts
| ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
On February 10 2011 00:40 RagnaBaby wrote: haha you nailed it! Krehlmar trying to look like he knows the term, but got it wrong. I still prefer micro intense games, rush or no rush. just some cool moves! Krehlmar is referring to macro games. Which are actually more micro intensive. | ||
|
MrSexington
United States1768 Posts
On February 10 2011 00:25 norlock wrote: Macro is a term we use for building units, keeping minerals and gass low, not getting supply blocked and able to expand a lot. What you are saying with pressure and stuff doesn't make sense. What you mean is multitasking (harrashing) with a heavy accent on macro. He was referring to "macro games" not just "macro" even if that's what he wrote in the end. Makes sense to me. | ||
|
compscidude
176 Posts
The OP seemed to be missing the last few games.. Thanks | ||
|
FantomX
Canada247 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
