|
On February 20 2011 10:05 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 10:03 imareaver3 wrote:On February 20 2011 10:00 TeWy wrote:
Makes no sense to camp and hope beating a tier3 Protoss army with 90 drones and mass roaches considering that they are 2 food...
It's painful to see a player having such a solid micro/macro and game awareness but seemingly (I know it's not like he is not aware of this issue but he doesn't seem to try to solve it) forget the basics. He lost his main with something like 4000 minerals banked...
The alternative being what? When he tried hydras, NightEnd killed 100 supply of them in 6 seconds with 2 FF's and 3 storms. BL's are the Only option that would have worked in that situation--and even then, I don't know if they could have been teched to in time. Realistically, he needed ultras. Ultras demolish stalker armies esp. when coupled with infestors and zerglings for the surround. Brood lords are too slow and don't do very well vs. mass stalkers.
Ultras might have helped, but there were ~8 immortals in that ball, and immortals chew up ultras really well. I'd say BL's would still work better; I've never seen ultras used well against a P.
|
On February 20 2011 10:10 starcraft2rush wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 10:06 Fa1nT wrote:On February 20 2011 10:05 starcraft2rush wrote:
I keep seeing people mention that morrow didn't get tier 3 earlier..What Im wondering is what tier 3 would do for him to help take out the deathball. As broodlords are negated by blink and Ultras are negated or are wayyy cost ineffective against immortals.
What exactly does tier 3 do for zerg in this matchup? other than 3/3/3 upgrades. Brood lords force stalkers to blink under them, putting them very close to roaches, which are cost effective vs stalker balls. That is it basically. Well I have to think upgraded stalkers with immortal, sentry(guardian shield) and templar/collosus are extremely cost effective against roaches.
Pretty much any lategame toss army is cost effective vs zerg once you're close to maxed. This is no exception.
|
On February 20 2011 10:10 kidd wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 10:04 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 10:02 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 10:00 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 09:59 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 09:52 Highways wrote:
I think Morrow made way too much drones.
90 drones is ridiculous, considering the 200 supply limit. Its actually close to the correct amount for that amount of bases. He was maxed and remaxed instantly. The storms were the problem, his army could have been 20 supply larger but it wouldnt have made a difference when he got rolled in seconds without doing damage. Too many corruptors was prolly the biggest problem, but its understandable since colossi is usually the main threat, Nightend was smart enough to go templar instead. No it's not close to the right amount. The number of bases doesn't matter, you can't let drones take too much of your supply. Also, did you see him floating 5000 minerals while being at 0 gas? He didn't need those drones, he'd have been floating mins even with 20-30 less drones. Zerg doesn't need many drones, they're gas-capped. Ah well, when maxed out I have often seen top zergs have around 80 drones. Yes but they're playing inefficiently. You just need to do what's good, not just copy others. They might win because of other reasons even if that mistake holds them back. It depends on the build. You can't say in general that 80 drones is always bad, if you're on enough bases and have double extractor on all of them, it's fine to have 80 though 75 is better.
If your army composition has roaches, I mean. Vs Terran it's all right at least until some point, but you still have to make spines so that you get down to 60-65 drones.
I really don't think you can sacrifice too much of your supply on drones if you want to not instantly die against a max-supply push.
|
The problem is most of the time we see ultra or broodlords when the game is lost anyway, like we saw in some games today.
If Morrow had teched to hive and morphed his 10 corruptors in addition to his ground army, everything would've been very different.
|
On February 20 2011 10:11 Turenne wrote:
Thats great and all dude, but what was your opinion on Morrow's play?
Well it is like Artosis said, he doesn't like to be caught pants down, thus he builded units he thought would be most effectiv. He could actually avoided that, since Protoss Buildings have this bad habit of showing which unit it build in it 8D
In the end he played "too" reactivly, and ended up with the wrong unit choice while beeing maxxed.
Still both players played their best series. You can't judge one game alone, it is also the experience from the earlier game, that influences the games after it.
|
Wow and FXOpen is in 40 minutes :o
|
United States11392 Posts
On February 20 2011 10:06 TheCrow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 10:04 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 10:02 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 10:00 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 09:59 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 09:52 Highways wrote:
I think Morrow made way too much drones.
90 drones is ridiculous, considering the 200 supply limit. Its actually close to the correct amount for that amount of bases. He was maxed and remaxed instantly. The storms were the problem, his army could have been 20 supply larger but it wouldnt have made a difference when he got rolled in seconds without doing damage. Too many corruptors was prolly the biggest problem, but its understandable since colossi is usually the main threat, Nightend was smart enough to go templar instead. No it's not close to the right amount. The number of bases doesn't matter, you can't let drones take too much of your supply. Also, did you see him floating 5000 minerals while being at 0 gas? He didn't need those drones, he'd have been floating mins even with 20-30 less drones. Zerg doesn't need many drones, they're gas-capped. Ah well, when maxed out I have often seen top zergs have around 80 drones. Yes but they're playing inefficiently. You just need to do what's good, not just copy others. They might win because of other reasons even if that mistake holds them back. So when IdrA has 80 drones and keeps his money low he is playing inefficiently? Lol, and were is the copying from other players comment come from?
Idra said that he prefers 60 drones and talked about this a lot with Ret who prefers 70ish..
They still haven't found the optimal saturation though.
|
On February 20 2011 10:14 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 10:10 kidd wrote:On February 20 2011 10:04 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 10:02 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 10:00 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 09:59 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 09:52 Highways wrote:
I think Morrow made way too much drones.
90 drones is ridiculous, considering the 200 supply limit. Its actually close to the correct amount for that amount of bases. He was maxed and remaxed instantly. The storms were the problem, his army could have been 20 supply larger but it wouldnt have made a difference when he got rolled in seconds without doing damage. Too many corruptors was prolly the biggest problem, but its understandable since colossi is usually the main threat, Nightend was smart enough to go templar instead. No it's not close to the right amount. The number of bases doesn't matter, you can't let drones take too much of your supply. Also, did you see him floating 5000 minerals while being at 0 gas? He didn't need those drones, he'd have been floating mins even with 20-30 less drones. Zerg doesn't need many drones, they're gas-capped. Ah well, when maxed out I have often seen top zergs have around 80 drones. Yes but they're playing inefficiently. You just need to do what's good, not just copy others. They might win because of other reasons even if that mistake holds them back. It depends on the build. You can't say in general that 80 drones is always bad, if you're on enough bases and have double extractor on all of them, it's fine to have 80 though 75 is better. If your army composition has roaches, I mean. Vs Terran it's all right at least until some point, but you still have to make spines so that you get down to 60-65 drones. I really don't think you can sacrifice too much of your supply on drones if you want to not instantly die against a max-supply push.
Totally depends on build and playstyle and map. If the battles played out like they did in the last game it would not have mattered if he had 20 less drones, he lost his armies instantly. If the battles aren't as one sided it would have been another story.
|
On February 20 2011 10:10 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 10:09 pilsken wrote:Ah well, when maxed out I have often seen top zergs have around 80 drones. 80 is the absolute maximum you can afford, and even then you should probably dump quite a bit into spines after having gathered enough minerals for 1-2 remaxes. Ret likes to play with far less drones, around 65 and Idra says he goes up to 70-75 at most iirc. The 200 supply cap hurts Zerg the most when your core unit is the Roach, which is great and all but far from supply-efficent so you need all the supply you can get. A high-templar takes for example the amount of supply as a Roach. Make that 20 drones less, 10 corruptors less and you have 20 roaches/hydras more in your army and that fight would have looked differently. Against those storms? Not really. He might have killed 5 more stalkers
Are you kidding me?
I'm not even saying he should send the stuff a-move into the same fight, though i do believe that 20 roaches would have done a ton of difference. Storm doesn't stack and Roaches are pretty sturdy, so i definitly think that would have looked vastly different.
But rather think outside from just straight up attacking. Imagine he was dropping 10 roaches in his main and then have 40 speedlings running into his third and killing every single probe at the same time with the same push.
It's not about taking protoss head-on, that simply doesn't work if the protoss chooses his composition well. But immortal/templar is as immobile as it gets. Morrow could have done a ton of shit to abuse that, but didn't.
|
On February 20 2011 10:18 MrCon wrote:
Wow and FXOpen is in 40 minutes :o
Yeah unfortunately we Europeans have to face the decision weather to stay up and watch it or go to bed.
I think I'm going to watch it :-D
|
Nightend played the current perfect late game of Protoss. He wasn't better at macro, micro nor game play. He just abused the possibility of colossus to force MorroW to build useless corruptors and switched to HT's. End of story.
|
On February 20 2011 10:20 pilsken wrote:Are you kidding me? I'm not even saying he should send the stuff a-move into the same fight, though i do believe that 20 roaches would have done a ton of difference. Storm doesn't stack and Roaches are pretty sturdy, so i definitly think that would have looked vastly different. But rather think outside from just straight up attacking. Imagine he was dropping 10 roaches in his main and then have 40 speedlings running into his third and killing every single probe at the same time with the same push. It's not about taking protoss head-on, that simply doesn't work if the protoss chooses his composition well. But immortal/templar is as immobile as it gets. Morrow could have done a ton of shit to abuse that, but didn't.
And how exactly does Morrow do this? The templar ball was sitting in the middle of the map, on his doorstep the entire time. You can't do speedling runbys through that. And any drop would simply be negated by a warp in
|
On February 20 2011 10:19 TheCrow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 10:14 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 10:10 kidd wrote:On February 20 2011 10:04 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 10:02 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 10:00 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 09:59 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 09:52 Highways wrote:
I think Morrow made way too much drones.
90 drones is ridiculous, considering the 200 supply limit. Its actually close to the correct amount for that amount of bases. He was maxed and remaxed instantly. The storms were the problem, his army could have been 20 supply larger but it wouldnt have made a difference when he got rolled in seconds without doing damage. Too many corruptors was prolly the biggest problem, but its understandable since colossi is usually the main threat, Nightend was smart enough to go templar instead. No it's not close to the right amount. The number of bases doesn't matter, you can't let drones take too much of your supply. Also, did you see him floating 5000 minerals while being at 0 gas? He didn't need those drones, he'd have been floating mins even with 20-30 less drones. Zerg doesn't need many drones, they're gas-capped. Ah well, when maxed out I have often seen top zergs have around 80 drones. Yes but they're playing inefficiently. You just need to do what's good, not just copy others. They might win because of other reasons even if that mistake holds them back. It depends on the build. You can't say in general that 80 drones is always bad, if you're on enough bases and have double extractor on all of them, it's fine to have 80 though 75 is better. If your army composition has roaches, I mean. Vs Terran it's all right at least until some point, but you still have to make spines so that you get down to 60-65 drones. I really don't think you can sacrifice too much of your supply on drones if you want to not instantly die against a max-supply push. Totally depends on build and playstyle and map. If the battles played out like they did in the last game it would not have mattered if he had 20 less drones, he lost his armies instantly. If the battles aren't as one sided it would have been another story.
No it doesn't. If you only have a 100 supply army against a 140 supply army, you don't really have a hope of winning. Sigh.
|
On February 20 2011 09:55 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 09:52 butchji wrote:
Anyone else thinks PvZ looks incredibly boring in SC2? Hmmmm.. let me think about it... no PvZ has been one of the most dynamic and evolving matchups in SC2, almost always giving some nice shows. Right now we're seeing protoss switch from colossi deathballs into phoenix and templar/archon play, we'll have to see whats the correct zerg response. As for boring matchups... ZvZ is one, but really PvP is the king of bad matchups, it's freaking horrible.
I've actually come to prefer both PvP (with even builds) and ZvZ dynamic short games to this kind of thing. Quite honestly, macro games in SC2 are painfully boring to watch in general and don't compare in the slightest to BW macro games. In SC2, macro games just lack tempo and intensity to make them fun to watch. Players don't get the chance to show their actual skill throughout the game.
In Brood War, in a 30+ minute game players are being pushed to the limits of their human ability, and that's why macro games were so awe-inspiring. In SC2, they're just casually expanding and trying to be smart with unit compositions. Seriously, if a match-up revolves around something called "deathball", there's no way in hell that can be a fun match-up.
I do agree with the person you quoted, all in all it was a pretty boring series to watch (except for the Scrap game, that one was decent).
|
Guys how did the final end?
|
On February 20 2011 10:24 rjT. wrote:
Guys how did the final end?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 20 2011 10:22 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 10:19 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 10:14 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 10:10 kidd wrote:On February 20 2011 10:04 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 10:02 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 10:00 Shikyo wrote:On February 20 2011 09:59 TheCrow wrote:On February 20 2011 09:52 Highways wrote:
I think Morrow made way too much drones.
90 drones is ridiculous, considering the 200 supply limit. Its actually close to the correct amount for that amount of bases. He was maxed and remaxed instantly. The storms were the problem, his army could have been 20 supply larger but it wouldnt have made a difference when he got rolled in seconds without doing damage. Too many corruptors was prolly the biggest problem, but its understandable since colossi is usually the main threat, Nightend was smart enough to go templar instead. No it's not close to the right amount. The number of bases doesn't matter, you can't let drones take too much of your supply. Also, did you see him floating 5000 minerals while being at 0 gas? He didn't need those drones, he'd have been floating mins even with 20-30 less drones. Zerg doesn't need many drones, they're gas-capped. Ah well, when maxed out I have often seen top zergs have around 80 drones. Yes but they're playing inefficiently. You just need to do what's good, not just copy others. They might win because of other reasons even if that mistake holds them back. It depends on the build. You can't say in general that 80 drones is always bad, if you're on enough bases and have double extractor on all of them, it's fine to have 80 though 75 is better. If your army composition has roaches, I mean. Vs Terran it's all right at least until some point, but you still have to make spines so that you get down to 60-65 drones. I really don't think you can sacrifice too much of your supply on drones if you want to not instantly die against a max-supply push. Totally depends on build and playstyle and map. If the battles played out like they did in the last game it would not have mattered if he had 20 less drones, he lost his armies instantly. If the battles aren't as one sided it would have been another story. No it doesn't. If you only have a 100 supply army against a 140 supply army, you don't really have a hope of winning. Sigh.
So according to you the highest supply army would win no matter what? If a P turtled and maxed out with 35 drones for example on 2 base he would be unbeatable by a Z with 65 drones? You do understand that remaxing is a part of Z play and thats how you win vs a more efficient army?
|
Nightend won 3:2 in the last game with good decision making.
|
On February 20 2011 10:23 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 09:55 mordk wrote:On February 20 2011 09:52 butchji wrote:
Anyone else thinks PvZ looks incredibly boring in SC2? Hmmmm.. let me think about it... no PvZ has been one of the most dynamic and evolving matchups in SC2, almost always giving some nice shows. Right now we're seeing protoss switch from colossi deathballs into phoenix and templar/archon play, we'll have to see whats the correct zerg response. As for boring matchups... ZvZ is one, but really PvP is the king of bad matchups, it's freaking horrible. I've actually come to prefer both PvP (with even builds) and ZvZ dynamic short games to this kind of thing. Quite honestly, macro games in SC2 are painfully boring to watch in general and don't compare in the slightest to BW macro games. In SC2, macro games just lack tempo and intensity to make them fun to watch. Players don't get the chance to show their actual skill throughout the game. In Brood War, in a 30+ minute game players are being pushed to the limits of their human ability, and that's why macro games were so awe-inspiring. In SC2, they're just casually expanding and trying to be smart with unit compositions. Seriously, if a match-up revolves around something called "deathball", there's no way in hell that can be a fun match-up. I do agree with the person you quoted, all in all it was a pretty boring series to watch (except for the Scrap game, that one was decent).
I think as the game progresses players will get better at harassing while macroing from their 3 or 4 bases which will result in more "action packed" games.
I still enjoyed the finals very much I have to say!
|
On February 20 2011 10:21 Dont-Panic wrote:Yeah unfortunately we Europeans have to face the decision weather to stay up and watch it or go to bed. I think I'm going to watch it :-D
I'll watch it too, cheering with a fellow euro-TLer at the same time ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
