|
Balance whining will result in a ban |
Yo requesting a interview from The "german zerg" himself  Mondragon.
|
On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:33 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2011 08:05 hugman wrote:On March 28 2011 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
You are mixing everything. Having 200/200 then pushing is not an all in, but going for a 200/200 void ray colossi on one robotics and two stargate is an all in. You push, but if you loose your army, you are never gonna be able to get your army fast enough to not die to the counter attack against a zerg on 7 bases, which means at least 7 hatch... Cruncher did not try to tech switch to templar, heavy gateway play, he did not even try to add on more stargate or more robo, why is that so? Because it was all in, his goal was to get that deathball out the faster possible, not delayed because he added more production facilities, not delayed because he would have taken one or two bases. You're way too hypothetical. He doesn't need to be able to instantly reproduce his army because he's not going to lose it all at once. If you throw away your entire army you're not playing Protoss right, they're meant to keep their units alive. Zerg can throw units away and quickly rebuild them, but not Protoss. An all-in is typically defined by sacrificing economy or tech for one big attack, and that's not what the 200/200 deathball is at all. He didn't have to kill IdrA, he could've sat back and upgraded more, taken a 4th etc. but 1) he can easily kill IdrA, so why not do it and 2) IdrA threw all his Corruptors away to Void Rays in a lol-tastic manner so he had basically won already. No I'm not hypothetical, you are. You are basically saying "if he is not loosing his army fast enough... blabla". It doesn't matter whever he is or not going to loose his army because it's simple: if he loose, he will first loose his big units then get swarmed and loose everything. The stalker/ray don't count it's all about the colossi. Going T3 late was certainly not a mistake from IdrA unlike so many naive viewers here seems to think. T3 for what ? Ultra and broodlord against void ray is certainly good... LOL. Going for +2 air attack and not great spire was also a good idea, what your broodlord can do against void ray... Do you play the game. Those types of games are legion on the server. If you crush the ball, you win unless the protoss the protoss has made enough production facilities or has already switch tech. At some point you just can't fight head on a 7 hatch zerg unless you are betting everything on your FF/Colossi or you have a good amount of gateway/robo/stargate to actually replenish your army. Cruncher never did try to harass, deny expo, kill drones, kill important structure... He was letting IdrA doing everything he wanted. That's all in, betting everything into one clash. And again, that's pretty funny to see all those protoss fanboys claiming it's all about IdrA. I could not careless about IdrA loosing, he can be such a BM player at time, but I'm here to entertain myself, not to see boring playstyle with no attack except timing push, turtling and shit. There is nothing off the chart with cruncher, he is always just playing standard protoss cheese / timing attacks. Of course Kas vs Haypro is a ZvT, but I'm not talking about the mu, I'm talking about the entertaining value of these matchs. Do *you* play the game? Honestly, please tell us how protoss should play so that you can be entertained. I can't wait to hear. Adelscott ?
Have fun going pure gateway units as protoss and fighting hydralisks. I thought we were talkinga about PvZ here.
|
On March 28 2011 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:05 hugman wrote:On March 28 2011 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
You are mixing everything. Having 200/200 then pushing is not an all in, but going for a 200/200 void ray colossi on one robotics and two stargate is an all in. You push, but if you loose your army, you are never gonna be able to get your army fast enough to not die to the counter attack against a zerg on 7 bases, which means at least 7 hatch... Cruncher did not try to tech switch to templar, heavy gateway play, he did not even try to add on more stargate or more robo, why is that so? Because it was all in, his goal was to get that deathball out the faster possible, not delayed because he added more production facilities, not delayed because he would have taken one or two bases. You're way too hypothetical. He doesn't need to be able to instantly reproduce his army because he's not going to lose it all at once. If you throw away your entire army you're not playing Protoss right, they're meant to keep their units alive. Zerg can throw units away and quickly rebuild them, but not Protoss. An all-in is typically defined by sacrificing economy or tech for one big attack, and that's not what the 200/200 deathball is at all. He didn't have to kill IdrA, he could've sat back and upgraded more, taken a 4th etc. but 1) he can easily kill IdrA, so why not do it and 2) IdrA threw all his Corruptors away to Void Rays in a lol-tastic manner so he had basically won already. No I'm not hypothetical, you are. You are basically saying "if he is not loosing his army fast enough... blabla". It doesn't matter whever he is or not going to loose his army because it's simple: if he loose, he will first loose his big units then get swarmed and loose everything. The stalker/ray don't count it's all about the colossi. Going T3 late was certainly not a mistake from IdrA unlike so many naive viewers here seems to think. T3 for what ? Ultra and broodlord against void ray is certainly good... LOL. Going for +2 air attack and not great spire was also a good idea, what your broodlord can do against void ray... Do you play the game. Those types of games are legion on the server. If you crush the ball, you win unless the protoss the protoss has made enough production facilities or has already switch tech. At some point you just can't fight head on a 7 hatch zerg unless you are betting everything on your FF/Colossi or you have a good amount of gateway/robo/stargate to actually replenish your army. Cruncher never did try to harass, deny expo, kill drones, kill important structure... He was letting IdrA doing everything he wanted. That's all in, betting everything into one clash. And again, that's pretty funny to see all those protoss fanboys claiming it's all about IdrA. I could not careless about IdrA loosing, he can be such a BM player at time, but I'm here to entertain myself, not to see boring playstyle with no attack except timing push, turtling and shit. There is nothing off the chart with cruncher, he is always just playing standard protoss cheese / timing attacks. Of course Kas vs Haypro is a ZvT, but I'm not talking about the mu, I'm talking about the entertaining value of these matchs.
You are again saying that it is all-in because if you completely destroy the army then he will lose. But that is like saying a mmm build is allin because if you destroy all his production he will certainly loose. In BW protoss was dead after he lost his late game core force completely most of the time, too. There are some problems with tackling that army but you should not just recklessly attack it. Attack on different fronts, flank and get a better army composition. And dont just a-move your corruptors. He could have easily destroyed all of the collossus and the force would suddenly look a lot weaker.
|
On March 28 2011 08:27 Logo2010 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:10 hugman wrote:On March 28 2011 08:06 Jimmeh wrote:On March 28 2011 07:49 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 07:43 Jimmeh wrote:On March 28 2011 07:38 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 07:36 Jimmeh wrote:On March 28 2011 07:33 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 07:30 Jimmeh wrote:On March 28 2011 07:27 Tyree wrote:
[quote]
It was a macro game, what are you even trying to debate here? Are you telling us it was a 3 base allin or something? Essentially, it basically was. his entire plan was to turtle to 200/200 colossi/void ray and then push. If the push failed, he'd of lost the game because Idra would have had a stupid amount of bases. Sounds like an all-in to me. Not really. Protoss macros up to 200/200 and then pushes while taking his fourth base. It's very standard and not all in at all. Hurtling to 200/200 -> Taking 4th = Macro game? Good to know. Yes. It is a macro game. Sorry if you want to see protoss take 8 bases before they max out every game. That's not how Starcraft 2 works. Your hyperbole is pretty good. I didn't say anything about Protoss taking 8 bases before max, I said that taking your 4th once you're maxed is definitely not a macro oriented play style. I'm sorry that you're a Protoss player who assumes that 3 bases = macro. Thanks, I find your smug and all-knowing demeanor entertaining as well. If that's not a macro oriented play-style, then you'll have to enlighten me as to what is. Because 3-mining bases is pretty much optimal for protoss. And I really haven't seen any professional protoss player play much differently than that. Cheers, I always try to entertain. 3 mining bases is only optimal for Protoss' "deathball" style of play and only because, generally, the current maps allow you to turtle on 3 bases pretty effectively. If it was possible to turtle on 4 bases with one big army (since the deathball relies on not being split) then that would become the "optimal" number for Protoss. If you're going pure gateway units all game long (see Adell vs MVP, I know it's a different matchup) then you need to a lot more bases because your stuff's going to die a lot so you need to be able to replenish it. 3 bases mining is optimal because of how many workers each base can support. To saturate four bases you'd need way too many probes and your army would suffer. Well to get decent saturation on a normal expo of say 8 patches 2 gas. You only need 2 per patch and 3 for gas so 16+6=22. So you could easily go 4 base and keep 16 workers mining minerals at each base I think would get more income than 3 base 3 workers per patch. 3 workers per patch = 3*8+3*2=30 * 3 bases = 90 workers. 2 workers per patch = 2*8+3*2=22 * 4 bases = 88 workers. I believe this way you get more gas and more minerals if your main isn't dry already.
90 workers is too much for zerg usually. With 90 supply in drones, 6 to 8 in queens, there only remains a bit more then 100 remaining for your army. That won't cut it really, especially since roaches are a bit supply ineffective.
|
Why are zerg not using fungal growth more on these protoss death balls? They are so bunched up most of the time that one fungal would hit most of the army.
|
On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:33 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2011 08:05 hugman wrote:On March 28 2011 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
You are mixing everything. Having 200/200 then pushing is not an all in, but going for a 200/200 void ray colossi on one robotics and two stargate is an all in. You push, but if you loose your army, you are never gonna be able to get your army fast enough to not die to the counter attack against a zerg on 7 bases, which means at least 7 hatch... Cruncher did not try to tech switch to templar, heavy gateway play, he did not even try to add on more stargate or more robo, why is that so? Because it was all in, his goal was to get that deathball out the faster possible, not delayed because he added more production facilities, not delayed because he would have taken one or two bases. You're way too hypothetical. He doesn't need to be able to instantly reproduce his army because he's not going to lose it all at once. If you throw away your entire army you're not playing Protoss right, they're meant to keep their units alive. Zerg can throw units away and quickly rebuild them, but not Protoss. An all-in is typically defined by sacrificing economy or tech for one big attack, and that's not what the 200/200 deathball is at all. He didn't have to kill IdrA, he could've sat back and upgraded more, taken a 4th etc. but 1) he can easily kill IdrA, so why not do it and 2) IdrA threw all his Corruptors away to Void Rays in a lol-tastic manner so he had basically won already. No I'm not hypothetical, you are. You are basically saying "if he is not loosing his army fast enough... blabla". It doesn't matter whever he is or not going to loose his army because it's simple: if he loose, he will first loose his big units then get swarmed and loose everything. The stalker/ray don't count it's all about the colossi. Going T3 late was certainly not a mistake from IdrA unlike so many naive viewers here seems to think. T3 for what ? Ultra and broodlord against void ray is certainly good... LOL. Going for +2 air attack and not great spire was also a good idea, what your broodlord can do against void ray... Do you play the game. Those types of games are legion on the server. If you crush the ball, you win unless the protoss the protoss has made enough production facilities or has already switch tech. At some point you just can't fight head on a 7 hatch zerg unless you are betting everything on your FF/Colossi or you have a good amount of gateway/robo/stargate to actually replenish your army. Cruncher never did try to harass, deny expo, kill drones, kill important structure... He was letting IdrA doing everything he wanted. That's all in, betting everything into one clash. And again, that's pretty funny to see all those protoss fanboys claiming it's all about IdrA. I could not careless about IdrA loosing, he can be such a BM player at time, but I'm here to entertain myself, not to see boring playstyle with no attack except timing push, turtling and shit. There is nothing off the chart with cruncher, he is always just playing standard protoss cheese / timing attacks. Of course Kas vs Haypro is a ZvT, but I'm not talking about the mu, I'm talking about the entertaining value of these matchs. Do *you* play the game? Honestly, please tell us how protoss should play so that you can be entertained. I can't wait to hear. Adelscott ? Incontrol is much more interesting to see than cruncher imo. MC too, with his baller muscletoss play.
Next time you decide you dislike the style of a certain player, do us all a favour and don't bitch about it for whoknowshowmany pages. You like other players more - great, good for you, move on.
|
On March 28 2011 08:34 okrane wrote:
The games of today, my review: in one word anticlimactic
1. IdrA vs Cruncher
Game 1: Totally abusive play by Cruncher turtling into deathball push making us all wonder about where is the action in an action driven game. Really hard for IdrA to punish him too ( he tried with a Nydus and an attack to the front but the architecture of the map made it so that the Protoss was quite defended).
Its the kind of game that makes us wonder about the actual game design. Its not that IdrA lost. Its not even a balance issue. When a matchup favores passive play and turtling from one side with very few downsides (read: IdrA had 8 bases at the end and couldnt stop the push) the game is utter crap.
No watchability, no excitement, no e-sports.
<snip>
No hard push when idra had 200 to 150 but waited 5 min for protoss to get 200 = fail
No corruption with corruptors = fail
No infestors = fail
No tier 3 =fail
Blame the game all you want but idra failed to counter the obvious unlike game 2 or mondragons play.
Abusive = exploiting opponents failures. I love abuse plays.
|
On March 28 2011 08:40 Trajan98 wrote:
Why are zerg not using fungal growth more on these protoss death balls? They are so bunched up most of the time that one fungal would hit most of the army.
The patch was recent and we still don't know how effective infestor play is going to become. The meta game needs time to adjust.
|
Yesterday's games were more entertaining no doubt. Though, seeing idra lose always makes my day.
|
On March 28 2011 08:40 Trajan98 wrote:
Why are zerg not using fungal growth more on these protoss death balls? They are so bunched up most of the time that one fungal would hit most of the army.
Some games were before the patch...plus infestors are made of glass and have the a very high target priority so they get killed very fast. Deathballs can get big enough to roll you before you get enough infestors to really kill a big amount of the ball I THINK, not sure.
|
On March 28 2011 08:37 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:27 Logo2010 wrote:On March 28 2011 08:10 hugman wrote:On March 28 2011 08:06 Jimmeh wrote:On March 28 2011 07:49 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 07:43 Jimmeh wrote:On March 28 2011 07:38 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 07:36 Jimmeh wrote:On March 28 2011 07:33 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 07:30 Jimmeh wrote:
[quote]
Essentially, it basically was.
his entire plan was to turtle to 200/200 colossi/void ray and then push. If the push failed, he'd of lost the game because Idra would have had a stupid amount of bases. Sounds like an all-in to me. Not really. Protoss macros up to 200/200 and then pushes while taking his fourth base. It's very standard and not all in at all. Hurtling to 200/200 -> Taking 4th = Macro game? Good to know. Yes. It is a macro game. Sorry if you want to see protoss take 8 bases before they max out every game. That's not how Starcraft 2 works. Your hyperbole is pretty good. I didn't say anything about Protoss taking 8 bases before max, I said that taking your 4th once you're maxed is definitely not a macro oriented play style. I'm sorry that you're a Protoss player who assumes that 3 bases = macro. Thanks, I find your smug and all-knowing demeanor entertaining as well. If that's not a macro oriented play-style, then you'll have to enlighten me as to what is. Because 3-mining bases is pretty much optimal for protoss. And I really haven't seen any professional protoss player play much differently than that. Cheers, I always try to entertain. 3 mining bases is only optimal for Protoss' "deathball" style of play and only because, generally, the current maps allow you to turtle on 3 bases pretty effectively. If it was possible to turtle on 4 bases with one big army (since the deathball relies on not being split) then that would become the "optimal" number for Protoss. If you're going pure gateway units all game long (see Adell vs MVP, I know it's a different matchup) then you need to a lot more bases because your stuff's going to die a lot so you need to be able to replenish it. 3 bases mining is optimal because of how many workers each base can support. To saturate four bases you'd need way too many probes and your army would suffer. Well to get decent saturation on a normal expo of say 8 patches 2 gas. You only need 2 per patch and 3 for gas so 16+6=22. So you could easily go 4 base and keep 16 workers mining minerals at each base I think would get more income than 3 base 3 workers per patch. 3 workers per patch = 3*8+3*2=30 * 3 bases = 90 workers. 2 workers per patch = 2*8+3*2=22 * 4 bases = 88 workers. I believe this way you get more gas and more minerals if your main isn't dry already. 90 workers is too much for zerg usually. With 90 supply in drones, 6 to 8 in queens, there only remains a bit more then 100 remaining for your army. That won't cut it really, especially since roaches are a bit supply ineffective.
True, usually by that time you don't have to make any more drones and have tonnes of larva to remake units quickly :D
4 bases well saturated is usually tough to reach in any game.
|
Crunchers Smiley Face was pretty pimp
|
On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:33 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2011 08:05 hugman wrote:On March 28 2011 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
You are mixing everything. Having 200/200 then pushing is not an all in, but going for a 200/200 void ray colossi on one robotics and two stargate is an all in. You push, but if you loose your army, you are never gonna be able to get your army fast enough to not die to the counter attack against a zerg on 7 bases, which means at least 7 hatch... Cruncher did not try to tech switch to templar, heavy gateway play, he did not even try to add on more stargate or more robo, why is that so? Because it was all in, his goal was to get that deathball out the faster possible, not delayed because he added more production facilities, not delayed because he would have taken one or two bases. You're way too hypothetical. He doesn't need to be able to instantly reproduce his army because he's not going to lose it all at once. If you throw away your entire army you're not playing Protoss right, they're meant to keep their units alive. Zerg can throw units away and quickly rebuild them, but not Protoss. An all-in is typically defined by sacrificing economy or tech for one big attack, and that's not what the 200/200 deathball is at all. He didn't have to kill IdrA, he could've sat back and upgraded more, taken a 4th etc. but 1) he can easily kill IdrA, so why not do it and 2) IdrA threw all his Corruptors away to Void Rays in a lol-tastic manner so he had basically won already. No I'm not hypothetical, you are. You are basically saying "if he is not loosing his army fast enough... blabla". It doesn't matter whever he is or not going to loose his army because it's simple: if he loose, he will first loose his big units then get swarmed and loose everything. The stalker/ray don't count it's all about the colossi. Going T3 late was certainly not a mistake from IdrA unlike so many naive viewers here seems to think. T3 for what ? Ultra and broodlord against void ray is certainly good... LOL. Going for +2 air attack and not great spire was also a good idea, what your broodlord can do against void ray... Do you play the game. Those types of games are legion on the server. If you crush the ball, you win unless the protoss the protoss has made enough production facilities or has already switch tech. At some point you just can't fight head on a 7 hatch zerg unless you are betting everything on your FF/Colossi or you have a good amount of gateway/robo/stargate to actually replenish your army. Cruncher never did try to harass, deny expo, kill drones, kill important structure... He was letting IdrA doing everything he wanted. That's all in, betting everything into one clash. And again, that's pretty funny to see all those protoss fanboys claiming it's all about IdrA. I could not careless about IdrA loosing, he can be such a BM player at time, but I'm here to entertain myself, not to see boring playstyle with no attack except timing push, turtling and shit. There is nothing off the chart with cruncher, he is always just playing standard protoss cheese / timing attacks. Of course Kas vs Haypro is a ZvT, but I'm not talking about the mu, I'm talking about the entertaining value of these matchs. Do *you* play the game? Honestly, please tell us how protoss should play so that you can be entertained. I can't wait to hear. Adelscott ? Incontrol is much more interesting to see than cruncher imo. MC too, with his baller muscletoss play. At least you see units dying all game long, you see army composition / attack timings changing from one game to another.
Do you even watch incontrol play pvz? He 3gate sentry expands while essentially turtling on two bases until he gets his colossi out. In the meantime he feigns engaging the zerg, what he refers to as "shark mode". Still, that's a moot point. Cruncher opted for early stargates and picked apart idra in the early game with phoenix and vr's. Not exactly what I'd call turtling OR a boring playstyle.
|
I love when people complain about there not being enough macro games and then protoss plays a macro game and its suddenly boring. Y is it not boring when zerg plays a macro game? Some people have some seriously transparently flawed logic.
|
idra games were played befor patch
|
On March 28 2011 08:36 luckybeni2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2011 08:05 hugman wrote:On March 28 2011 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
You are mixing everything. Having 200/200 then pushing is not an all in, but going for a 200/200 void ray colossi on one robotics and two stargate is an all in. You push, but if you loose your army, you are never gonna be able to get your army fast enough to not die to the counter attack against a zerg on 7 bases, which means at least 7 hatch... Cruncher did not try to tech switch to templar, heavy gateway play, he did not even try to add on more stargate or more robo, why is that so? Because it was all in, his goal was to get that deathball out the faster possible, not delayed because he added more production facilities, not delayed because he would have taken one or two bases. You're way too hypothetical. He doesn't need to be able to instantly reproduce his army because he's not going to lose it all at once. If you throw away your entire army you're not playing Protoss right, they're meant to keep their units alive. Zerg can throw units away and quickly rebuild them, but not Protoss. An all-in is typically defined by sacrificing economy or tech for one big attack, and that's not what the 200/200 deathball is at all. He didn't have to kill IdrA, he could've sat back and upgraded more, taken a 4th etc. but 1) he can easily kill IdrA, so why not do it and 2) IdrA threw all his Corruptors away to Void Rays in a lol-tastic manner so he had basically won already. No I'm not hypothetical, you are. You are basically saying "if he is not loosing his army fast enough... blabla". It doesn't matter whever he is or not going to loose his army because it's simple: if he loose, he will first loose his big units then get swarmed and loose everything. The stalker/ray don't count it's all about the colossi. Going T3 late was certainly not a mistake from IdrA unlike so many naive viewers here seems to think. T3 for what ? Ultra and broodlord against void ray is certainly good... LOL. Going for +2 air attack and not great spire was also a good idea, what your broodlord can do against void ray... Do you play the game. Those types of games are legion on the server. If you crush the ball, you win unless the protoss the protoss has made enough production facilities or has already switch tech. At some point you just can't fight head on a 7 hatch zerg unless you are betting everything on your FF/Colossi or you have a good amount of gateway/robo/stargate to actually replenish your army. Cruncher never did try to harass, deny expo, kill drones, kill important structure... He was letting IdrA doing everything he wanted. That's all in, betting everything into one clash. And again, that's pretty funny to see all those protoss fanboys claiming it's all about IdrA. I could not careless about IdrA loosing, he can be such a BM player at time, but I'm here to entertain myself, not to see boring playstyle with no attack except timing push, turtling and shit. There is nothing off the chart with cruncher, he is always just playing standard protoss cheese / timing attacks. Of course Kas vs Haypro is a ZvT, but I'm not talking about the mu, I'm talking about the entertaining value of these matchs. You are again saying that it is all-in because if you completely destroy the army then he will lose. But that is like saying a mmm build is allin because if you destroy all his production he will certainly loose. In BW protoss was dead after he lost his late game core force completely most of the time, too. There are some problems with tackling that army but you should not just recklessly attack it. Attack on different fronts, flank and get a better army composition. And dont just a-move your corruptors. He could have easily destroyed all of the collossus and the force would suddenly look a lot weaker.
What the hell, seriously. MMM is no all in exactly because terran tend to add on more baracks as the game goes on.... My point is, cruncher does not add any gateway/robo as the game goes on.
And I agree with you IdrA should have killed the colossi, so what ?
Next time you decide you dislike the style of a certain player, do us all a favour and don't bitch about it for whoknowshowmany pages. You like other players more - great, good for you, move on.
Seriously what's up with you ? We are not talking about balance, why should we not talk about the players that made the games ? I hope cruncher get crunched by mondragon so that we may see some better game later in the tournament.
Do you even watch incontrol play pvz? He 3gate sentry expands while essentially turtling on two bases until he gets his colossi out. In the meantime he feigns engaging the zerg, what he refers to as "shark mode". Still, that's a moot point. Cruncher opted for early stargates and picked apart idra in the early game with phoenix and vr's. Not exactly what I'd call turtling OR a boring playstyle.
Then added a certain number of photon, blocked his main entrance and waited to go 200/200... not turtling lol.
|
On March 28 2011 08:41 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:34 okrane wrote:
The games of today, my review: in one word anticlimactic
1. IdrA vs Cruncher
Game 1: Totally abusive play by Cruncher turtling into deathball push making us all wonder about where is the action in an action driven game. Really hard for IdrA to punish him too ( he tried with a Nydus and an attack to the front but the architecture of the map made it so that the Protoss was quite defended).
Its the kind of game that makes us wonder about the actual game design. Its not that IdrA lost. Its not even a balance issue. When a matchup favores passive play and turtling from one side with very few downsides (read: IdrA had 8 bases at the end and couldnt stop the push) the game is utter crap.
No watchability, no excitement, no e-sports.
<snip> No hard push when idra had 200 to 150 but waited 5 min for protoss to get 200 = fail No infestors = fail No tier 3 =fail Blame the game all you want but idra failed to counter the obvious unlike game 2 or mondragons play. Abusive = exploiting opponents failures. I love abuse plays.
You know what map they played on right?
If Idra makes a "hard push" on Shakuras he gets crushed easily as there are only two narrow chokes which hugely favor colossus and he could not drop because of the stalker-air-defense.
As long as toss scouts a little bit where the bigger part of your army is he will be absolutely fine.
the only thing I could imagine to crack that would be something like 8 simultaneous nydus worms or something similar hillarious.. Maybe getting broodlords and then just poking around the edges of the bases, somehow guarding the broodlords with god knows what against the voidrays.
|
On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:33 skycaptain wrote:On March 28 2011 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2011 08:05 hugman wrote:On March 28 2011 07:40 WhiteDog wrote:
You are mixing everything. Having 200/200 then pushing is not an all in, but going for a 200/200 void ray colossi on one robotics and two stargate is an all in. You push, but if you loose your army, you are never gonna be able to get your army fast enough to not die to the counter attack against a zerg on 7 bases, which means at least 7 hatch... Cruncher did not try to tech switch to templar, heavy gateway play, he did not even try to add on more stargate or more robo, why is that so? Because it was all in, his goal was to get that deathball out the faster possible, not delayed because he added more production facilities, not delayed because he would have taken one or two bases. You're way too hypothetical. He doesn't need to be able to instantly reproduce his army because he's not going to lose it all at once. If you throw away your entire army you're not playing Protoss right, they're meant to keep their units alive. Zerg can throw units away and quickly rebuild them, but not Protoss. An all-in is typically defined by sacrificing economy or tech for one big attack, and that's not what the 200/200 deathball is at all. He didn't have to kill IdrA, he could've sat back and upgraded more, taken a 4th etc. but 1) he can easily kill IdrA, so why not do it and 2) IdrA threw all his Corruptors away to Void Rays in a lol-tastic manner so he had basically won already. No I'm not hypothetical, you are. You are basically saying "if he is not loosing his army fast enough... blabla". It doesn't matter whever he is or not going to loose his army because it's simple: if he loose, he will first loose his big units then get swarmed and loose everything. The stalker/ray don't count it's all about the colossi. Going T3 late was certainly not a mistake from IdrA unlike so many naive viewers here seems to think. T3 for what ? Ultra and broodlord against void ray is certainly good... LOL. Going for +2 air attack and not great spire was also a good idea, what your broodlord can do against void ray... Do you play the game. Those types of games are legion on the server. If you crush the ball, you win unless the protoss the protoss has made enough production facilities or has already switch tech. At some point you just can't fight head on a 7 hatch zerg unless you are betting everything on your FF/Colossi or you have a good amount of gateway/robo/stargate to actually replenish your army. Cruncher never did try to harass, deny expo, kill drones, kill important structure... He was letting IdrA doing everything he wanted. That's all in, betting everything into one clash. And again, that's pretty funny to see all those protoss fanboys claiming it's all about IdrA. I could not careless about IdrA loosing, he can be such a BM player at time, but I'm here to entertain myself, not to see boring playstyle with no attack except timing push, turtling and shit. There is nothing off the chart with cruncher, he is always just playing standard protoss cheese / timing attacks. Of course Kas vs Haypro is a ZvT, but I'm not talking about the mu, I'm talking about the entertaining value of these matchs. Do *you* play the game? Honestly, please tell us how protoss should play so that you can be entertained. I can't wait to hear. Adelscott ? Incontrol is much more interesting to see than cruncher imo. MC too, with his baller muscletoss play. At least you see units dying all game long, you see army composition / attack timings changing from one game to another.
Have you tried going only Gateway units against Zerg? MC pretty much did 5-6 gate timing pushes in his games against July. In the TSL MC did a VR rush into a timing push win in game 2. The thing is, in PvZ, the safest way to play is to try to take out Z in one hit, because of the fact that they can re-max their army.
Cruncher followed this very same philosophy against Idra. In game 1 he expanded and turtled, until he went on the offensive and won the game. In game 2 he went for the same strat except he tried to snag a 3rd, but got dismantled by Idra's drops. In game 3 he went for a 6 gate push and once again won the game with one attack.
So let's review: the best way to beat Zerg is to win with one good attack, be it with a deathball or with a warpgate rush. If Adelscott was facing a Zerg player he would definitely not be playing the same Gateway-only unit style late into the game that he did against MVP.
|
On March 28 2011 08:34 okrane wrote:
The games of today, my review: in one word anticlimactic
1. IdrA vs Cruncher
Game 1: Totally abusive play by Cruncher turtling into deathball push making us all wonder about where is the action in an action driven game. Really hard for IdrA to punish him too ( he tried with a Nydus and an attack to the front but the architecture of the map made it so that the Protoss was quite defended).
Its the kind of game that makes us wonder about the actual game design. Its not that IdrA lost. Its not even a balance issue. When a matchup favores passive play and turtling from one side with very few downsides (read: IdrA had 8 bases at the end and couldnt stop the push) the game is utter crap.
No watchability, no excitement, no e-sports.
Game 2: Really nice Z drop harrass. Its rare that we see Zerg harrass with drops, this made a quite nice game.
Game 3: IdrA drones when the push comes and loses. The problem here is again with the scouting. IdrA had no idea that there was a 5 gate incoming. The build looks and feels exactly like a 3 gate-expand.
This game shows exactly another major flaw of SC2: limited scouting options to deal with an ever increasing pace of aggression. This leads to volatility of the match-ups and many dumb losses by better players. It also encourages cheesy and all-in plays, a little too much in my opinion.
And then there is the question of the forcefields: kinda frustrating to be on the receiving end of that thing, and again from a spectator point of view, casters screaming Beautiful Forcefields gets old quite quickly once u realize that most forcefields are quite beautiful. Once the false hype goes off, all its left is the realization of the fact that the receiving end of the forcefields gets manhandled with very limited options in return.
- Abusive play by cruncher ? What the fuck are you talking about ? If it leads to a victory, why shouldn't he do it ? I'm getting tired by these mongrels pretending that there is a "good" way to win the game. Cruncher did what he had to do, that's it. The only one to blame is Idra for being passive and taking too many bases instead of attacking on multiple fronts and denying Cruncher gas income.
- You are blaming the "boringness" of the games on Cruncher passive play. Why not blame Idra for not being more agressive and exploiting the weekness of the passive player ?
- The segment in bold is just a copy/paste from everything Idra has been saying in interviews/forum posts. The use of the term "volatility", the abusive expression "all-in". Idra made the exact same Scouting vs Agression analysis in the Redit questions interview. You are pretending like this is your own genuine opinion but you are just stealing it from your favorite pro.
- So Idra built 7 drones instead of attacking units because of the lack of scouting in the game? Are you kidding me ? He saw a big army coming straight to him, he should have prepared for it.
You seems like a total whiner, even your signature is pure whinery. Change your attitude and stop making exuses for your favorite players losing.
Look at how Mondragon played. Now that's a lesson, breaking the myth that the way to play Zerg is to do nothing the first 15 minutes of the game, and blaming "lack of scouting", "stupid all-in" or "cheese" if you lose.
|
That's what broodlords are for, to force an engagement. Broodlords have 9.5 range so they can sit out of range of a protoss army and pick at the front of the base forcing the P to either engage or lose his buildings. Also, getting too many roaches for a 200/200 army isn't good since roaches are so supply ineffective, that's why mutas, broodlords, blings, and hydras for AA are good. They are more supply effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
