|
On April 24 2011 01:42 NemEU wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:38 KristianJS wrote:On April 24 2011 01:36 AxionSteel wrote:
I hate forcefields. Such a boring ability. Yeah, I really do agree. Good forcefields literally eliminate micro from battles...I mean why would Blizzard think that's a good idea? I dont think you understand what micro means... A protoss player having good forcefields *IS* the protoss player having good micro. The zerg players micro would be not getting trapped and not engaging in disadvantages positions like in chokes or on MCs ramp. If the ff goes down and the zerg is trapped that means the micro already happened and the protoss players micro was better.
Force field casting has a range of 9
Roaches have a range of 4
Zerg players can't micro against force field. they can either choose to never engage the Protoss or engage Protoss and then have lines of forcefields splitting up their ground army.
|
On April 24 2011 01:47 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:43 diverzee wrote:On April 24 2011 01:38 NemEU wrote:
I keep hearing people on here bitching about ff or imbalance in this mu. I have no idea which series you guys were watching but MC is just absurdly good. At no point in any of the games he won was he remotely close to losing, he always had his units in the right place, never out of position, always the right units.
This attitude is poison in the Sc2 community people are more ready to choose imbalance as the reason for a players success over skill, which is just stupid. Zerg players are particuluarly guilty of this, and I think its due to a really vocal minority which since early in the beta have been hell bent on convincing the community that zerg is this shitty race that just somehow bizzarely happens to have all the best players top to bottom. The only reason they have any success is because they are the best, and if they played p/t they would never lose a game. Seriously even mediocre ladder players are possessed of this ridiculas notion.
MC is just that good. Or the the majority of zerg players, as well as non-biased, non-zerg players (I wonder what race they play) focus their attention towards protoss for a reason. If the very majority of balance complaints are directed towards a particular matchup, with other mathcups' complaints being much lesser in frequency, it may point towards that particular matchup looking very uneven at the current state of the game. But the current state of the game has little to do with balance. Plus, believe it or not, the majority can be wrong. And often is. Non biased, non zerg player here.
That's true. So what are people actually complaining about? Balance or the current state of the game? People react when they keep seeing zerg lose over and over against protoss. Thus they blame balance, but are upset with the state of the game. The state of the game can change through advent of new builds, or through balance changes. Personally I wouldn't mind the latter.
|
On April 24 2011 01:46 OgsStump wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:34 .Enigma. wrote:
It hurts to know that MorroW could've won the first two games by just changing up his composition a little, it hurts to see a Zerg staying on roach/hydra tech for too long. :< Do you mean change composition and stay on the same tech or tech up to infestors or hive. If you are talking about changing tech i both agree and disagree with you. I'm a protoss player and I agree with you in game 1 he had an opportunity to change his tech because of his big lead but I'm not sure he had the same window in game 2. It seems to me like a lot of people don't realize how much you have to commit to change your composition into a higher tech. I mean you hear state of the game people say that people need to add infestors to the composition to be successful but fail to really address the impact that changing your tech has on your army size/economy (besides idra of course lol). It's not like you can have the exact same army and have infestors. Changing tech for zerg does involve some sacrifice. You're likely giving up the instant remax possiblity if you change to infestors or hive tech. Meaning if you can't take down the protoss ball in the first big engagement, you likely won't have enough units in the next engagement. I think in order to change tech without risking huge vulnerabilities to timing attacks you need to have a significant lead on your opponent like he had during game 1. Idk correct me if I'm wrong. Morrow couldn't have held off that initially 2 collosus timing attack if he was simultaneously trying to tech up to hive or infestors.
Well yeah, I agree that it does take some time and money to change your tech but I felt like MorroW was ahead in supply enough in both games to atleast get his infestors going and atleast hive starting before the big engagement.
It's more about the gas cost and it looked like MorroW could've afforded to pump out quite a few infestors and still be very safe. And I mean not to sprint for the higher tech but to gradually get it which was a mistake that MorroW did. He basically stayed on roach / hydra / corruptor the entire game, even in the late game which is when your infestors, greater spire or ultra den should be able to be put into good use.
I didn't pay that much attention to the games, but's how I feel about it.
|
On April 24 2011 01:44 Feridan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2011 01:41 rushian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:38 NemEU wrote:
I keep hearing people on here bitching about ff or imbalance in this mu. I have no idea which series you guys were watching but MC is just absurdly good. At no point in any of the games he won was he remotely close to losing, he always had his units in the right place, never out of position, always the right units.
This attitude is poison in the Sc2 community people are more ready to choose imbalance as the reason for a players success over skill, which is just stupid. Zerg players are particuluarly guilty of this, and I think its due to a really vocal minority which since early in the beta have been hell bent on convincing the community that zerg is this shitty race that just somehow bizzarely happens to have all the best players top to bottom. The only reason they have any success is because they are the best, and if they played p/t they would never lose a game. Seriously even mediocre ladder players are possessed of this ridiculas notion.
MC is just that good. great post.. I guess some of it just standard raging that their favourite player lost.. I mean morrow couldn't have gotten outplayed, there must be something wrong with the game instead right? Except that we can't tell the difference between what MC is doing and what Cruncher or any other protoss does. Build 4 unit types, spam FF, be in the right position. Why shouldn't protoss ever have to mix it up?
Protoss do mix it up; the reason Zerg players cite for their mass Roach play is a fear of 2 base Warpgate rushes. Current Protoss styles use some mix of Zealot/Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/DT/Archon/Colossus/Obs/Phoenix/Void with occasional Prisms. No, you don't see a lot of Carriers or High Templar or Motherships. You'd see more Templar if Zerg made more use of Infestors...
|
|
|
khaldor, you are awesome man. i would much rather have you on the stream than the coke girl. just sayin.
|
On April 24 2011 01:46 AxionSteel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:41 hitman133 wrote:On April 24 2011 01:36 AxionSteel wrote:
I hate forcefields. Such a boring ability. Makes zerg and terran armies impossible to micro, certainly good for a game. With out FF, Protoss can't stop Terran and Zerg, think about it. MMM just gonna kite Zealots all day, Zerglings and baneling just run straight to Protoss expensive units. And if you think FF is easy to do? Try it, 1 miss FF could cost you the game. I'm not talking about balance, i know especially terran would demolish protoss early/mid game without forcefields. I just think the whole protoss race was poorly designed. PvP is pretty bad, games involving collossus are typically boring camp fests, and Forcefields are just stupid, they're VERY hard to dodge, and if they pull off a good one you cannot micro whatsoever. How is that good for the game?
Protoss must have tier 3 units like Colossus or HTs to execute the game, you know it, it's not camping when units are expensive as hell and they have to support each other. Protoss is a very heavy micro race IMO, they're not boring as you watch, just play it. And btw FF is not very hard to dodge if you just stupid enough to run into a small choke, in wide open maps, FFs are not never enough.
|
On April 24 2011 01:47 PHC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:37 .Enigma. wrote:On April 24 2011 01:37 Cripp wrote:
It's so funny that no one gives MC credit for taking the series. He only won because he is playing Toss right? It seems like if Toss wins it's always becuase of the race, never becuase the played playd actually good. Think about it. Are you even reading the thread? People are complimenting MC left and right and there's like not much balance talk at all. Have you? Every time someone makes a compliment about MC's play today, someone immediately shuts that player down. "Impressive forcefields from MC" Response: "75% overlap? How is that impressive?" "MC 2 steps above other players" Response: "he got slapped back down to up/down" There's like not much balance talk at all? Are you serious?
Nice reading there.
Person A said people are claiming people are discreting MC's win with balance complains.
Person B points out that's not really the point (which it wasn't)
You post two examples that doesn't have anything to do with balance and claim person B was wrong :s
And most of the balance complaints startd after those posts since there wer quite a few pages back...
Are you serious?
|
On April 24 2011 01:49 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:45 zeru wrote:On April 24 2011 01:41 TYJ.Aoy wrote:On April 24 2011 01:40 Dante08 wrote:
Although Morrow lost, was anyone impressed with his macro? Especially in game 2 I felt he macroed so well, just that the strategy he chose was wrong.
Well he used to play bw so it isn't too surprising. According to tyler everything morrow did was bad, he knows, right? Yes, actually. That's arguable. Just because he's a baller doesn't mean he is a God of sc2 strategies.
You're using a straw man anyway; Tyler hasn't said every zerg that loses played bad, he's said he can see the mistakes that lost them the game. Which is the exact same thing he said when protoss wouldn't stfu about how they were so underpowered (el oh el).
EDIT: Nvm didn't even read thread, thought you were referencing something else.
But regardless, if Tyler says Morrow played bad...I am inclined to believe him.
|
hahhaha khaldor is a cheeser.
|
Khaldor I love ure casting 
Greetings back from the time of inwarcraft.de
"GUMMIBÄREN...!"
|
On April 24 2011 01:52 Lennon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:50 RedDragon571 wrote:
You know, if zerg's experiment with going lair with the first hundred gas, alot of timings and option open up z v p :D, it works on a master level :D Good troll. Protoss scouts, sees early undefended tech, 4 gate all-in, wins game.
Haha I'm pretty sure he was making a reference to the Spanishiwa style of play. Or... I might just be overestimating the poster.
|
On April 24 2011 01:46 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:44 Noocta wrote:
ZvP with Roach Hydra is just not good at all anymore.
People need to stop doing it as protoss get better at forcefield this kind of army. The combinaison of Forcefield and 9range Colossi is so perfect against midrange units. If you don't use roach/hydra in ZvP, then where DO YOU use it? You most certainly fucking don't get hydra in TvZ. So basically, you have two units that don't work in two major matchups, don't you see a problem here?
Hydra are a good lategame unit against P with an Infestor broodlord unit combinaison tho. And a nice addition to any ZvZ if they don't cut too much into your Infestors count. It's fine that they ain't use in TvZ i think.
But heh, roach hydra seems good on papper, they share upgrades, there's strong in a ball, roach tank damage while hydra have a sick dps, etc
But when you see what P and T have at the time you have Roach Hydra, they're just not that good...
|
soo what to watch.. TSL in 1 hour or copenhagen games finals? i really cant decide :S
|
so how about that MC always 4gating huh?
|
They are giving out some prices I think
|
On April 24 2011 01:47 mighty_honour_korea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:40 Yaotzin wrote:On April 24 2011 01:37 TYJ.Aoy wrote:On April 24 2011 01:34 HwangjaeTerran wrote:On April 24 2011 01:33 noezke wrote:
I know i'm probably inviting flames, but what exactly is so impressive about forcefield placement? :S The protoss players life hangs on perfect forcefields. Meh, I see those so called "perfect forcefields" every ZvP, be the protoss mc or naniwa or cruncher or jackthesurfer, I wonder why. Because commentators overhype things. You most certainly can fail hard with your FFs, as any Protoss player can attest. You have a split second to decide where to put them and to space them correctly. MC's forcefields actually are impressive, perfectly placed within a second or two. The reason you hear it all the time is because casters, a lot of them, have nothing worthwhile to say, so they pull go-to phrases out of their arseholes. Nice forcefields is a favourite. You'll notice they often times like to talk incredibly fast too, because it makes it more difficult to notice how trivial what they're saying actually is. It's an overused phrase, but in this instance it's pretty appropriate.
I agree entirely that FF use can require skill, but that's normally the case when the number of FFs you cast is limited so a miss-placed FF actually hurts you. In the final battle of game 4 MC essentially had infinite FFs so even though Morrow pulled back from the 1st line of FFs then burrowed under the 2nd there was a 3rd line as well. You could certainly make the case that Morrow should have restricted the number of sentries MC had somehow (zerg players generally do well when they manage to snipe sentries in the early/mid game), but that's not really my point.
FFs in the early/mid game when there are few sentries with little energy do require a lot of skill to use well and punish Toss who use them badly. In the late game a misplaced FF has zero effect at all as you can just spam another 10. They don't require skill as you just have so many of them. Maybe reducing the maximum energy of a sentry or adding a cooldown with the same length as the duration of a FF would help here? That way Toss would still have to use FFs carefully rather than just spamming them.
|
On April 24 2011 01:51 sinii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:33 Lennon wrote:On April 24 2011 01:29 sinii wrote:On April 24 2011 01:28 Lennon wrote:On April 24 2011 01:25 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On April 24 2011 01:23 Lennon wrote:Lose with a standard strategy: He sucks. What the fuck is he doing? Win with a risky all-in strategy: He's a genious! he lost because he played bad in the first two games. micro macro build order tactics strategy. style has nothing to do with it. it looked like he wanted to play a style like this http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors3/vod/65005 but is really really bad at it, cutting back on the effectiveness of attacking head on for investments that end up not helping at all with anything I was poking fun at the comments in this thread as opposed to the actual games. I still agree though. You have been whining about Zerg for the past few comments, don't change your tune when a pro shuts you down. Change my tune? I wasn't even whining. Im not going to go back and quote your posts, but essentially the thread something like: thread: "omg morrow use something other then Roaches" Lennon: "there is no alternative to Roaches" thread: "Your kidding ain't you? he didn't even try to use infestors/broods" Lennon: "Theres no viable alternative, it's either this or mutas and lose" Tyler: "Morrow just played bad" Lennon: "Oh yeh i was just poking fun at all these posters lol"
I wasn't whining. Roaches are the standard opening right now. There's no other safe alternative.
Tyler misunderstood my post but he said MorroW played bad I agree he played bad.
I never changed my opinion.
|
On April 24 2011 01:45 EmilA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:43 aScle wrote:On April 24 2011 01:38 KristianJS wrote:On April 24 2011 01:36 AxionSteel wrote:
I hate forcefields. Such a boring ability. Yeah, I really do agree. Good forcefields literally eliminate micro from battles...I mean why would Blizzard think that's a good idea? Please put your balance talk in the b.net forums. Also you realize that in that match forcefields never entirely eliminated all micro from battles as burrowed roaches are one of the few units that move through them. It wasn't a balance whine. Forcefields are just boring by design as they limit opponent's possibility of microing.
So what do you think about concussive shell? and Ling surronds? or Fungal Growth? Let me guess, there is a "but.." to it right?
No more than 4months ago people got excited when Protoss beat Zerg using Colossus/Forcefields, perception of imbalance completely changes how "boring" something is.
I can guarantee you, if Protoss were having some kind of mid/late game problem against both races then no one would even be complaining about forcefields, hell, no one was even complaining this much until MC vs July finals happened
|
On April 24 2011 01:52 diverzee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 01:47 The KY wrote:On April 24 2011 01:43 diverzee wrote:On April 24 2011 01:38 NemEU wrote:
I keep hearing people on here bitching about ff or imbalance in this mu. I have no idea which series you guys were watching but MC is just absurdly good. At no point in any of the games he won was he remotely close to losing, he always had his units in the right place, never out of position, always the right units.
This attitude is poison in the Sc2 community people are more ready to choose imbalance as the reason for a players success over skill, which is just stupid. Zerg players are particuluarly guilty of this, and I think its due to a really vocal minority which since early in the beta have been hell bent on convincing the community that zerg is this shitty race that just somehow bizzarely happens to have all the best players top to bottom. The only reason they have any success is because they are the best, and if they played p/t they would never lose a game. Seriously even mediocre ladder players are possessed of this ridiculas notion.
MC is just that good. Or the the majority of zerg players, as well as non-biased, non-zerg players (I wonder what race they play) focus their attention towards protoss for a reason. If the very majority of balance complaints are directed towards a particular matchup, with other mathcups' complaints being much lesser in frequency, it may point towards that particular matchup looking very uneven at the current state of the game. But the current state of the game has little to do with balance. Plus, believe it or not, the majority can be wrong. And often is. Non biased, non zerg player here. That's true. So what are people actually complaining about? Balance or the current state of the game? People react when they keep seeing zerg lose over and over against protoss. Thus they blame balance, but are upset with the state of the game. The state of the game can change through advent of new builds, or through balance changes. Personally I wouldn't mind the latter.
Balance changes are inevitable, but there's nothing we can do to affect it. As players though we have direct control over the state of the game. Or, at least, the pros do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
