|
Balance whining will result in a ban |
you guys need to understand the main goal of the player is to WIN not to provide an interesting game. If a player needs to turtle a bit, play defensive, and mass up until 200/200 to push out and win, then that's what he will do.
Tim Duncan and the Spurs in the NBA for example, boring ass team to watch but they win championships.
Also I'm not talking about a balance issue here just stating the mindset of a player that is looking to win. A player looking to win should do anything that is necessary that isn't cheating obviously. Whether that is turtling on 2-3 base till 200/200 or staying one base 6 pooling every game, it doesnt matter. Winning is winning.
|
France8650 Posts
On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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 that he did against MVP.
Yes and so ? There is a difference between having a certain army composition, and going for the well known abusive build of the day. MC added dark templar to most of his games against July, that's interesting. That was not pure 6 gate.
Adel always add a forge and get some upgrades, that's a deviation. That's in these tiny things that starcraft gets interesting. Having 500 games that looks the same and that get absolutly decided in one go are useless.
MC and Adelscott both prepare for the later stage of the game, not cruncher, period.
|
On March 28 2011 08:45 ReachTheSky wrote:
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.
It could be that maybe, zerg and protoss are entirely different and therefore they incorporate different styles of play when macroing. 3 bases is pretty pedestrian in a macro game for instance.
|
On March 28 2011 08:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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 that he did against MVP. Yes and so ? There is a difference between having a certain army composition, and going for the well known abusive build of the day. MC added dark templar to most of his games against July, that's interesting. That was not pure 6 gate. Adel always add a forge and get some upgrades, that's a deviation. That's in these tiny things that starcraft gets interesting. Having 500 games that looks the same and that get absolutly decided in one go are useless. MC and Adelscott both prepare for the later stage of the game, not cruncher, period.
When you're at 200/200 with a godly composition, you're AT the "later stage of the game."
|
Pretty dissapointed. Another player wins that I wouldn't watch even if he got to the finals (cruncher).
|
On March 28 2011 08:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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 that he did against MVP. Yes and so ? There is a difference between having a certain army composition, and going for the well known abusive build of the day. MC added dark templar to most of his games against July, that's interesting. That was not pure 6 gate. Adel always add a forge and get some upgrades, that's a deviation. That's in these tiny things that starcraft gets interesting. Having 500 games that looks the same and that get absolutly decided in one go are useless. MC and Adelscott both prepare for the later stage of the game, not cruncher, period.
He won. If that's what he's gotta do then that's what he's gotta do. Idra proved that the build can be countered in game 2 (he pulled the same strategy July pulled against MC in the GSL, when MC went forge fast expand to starport) so calling it "abusive" is kind of silly.
|
I don't see how Idra could reasonably have built broodlords in the first game, there were just too many protoss air units. As it was, he needed 20+ corruptors just to deal with the colossi and air units.
|
On March 28 2011 08:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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 that he did against MVP. Yes and so ? There is a difference between having a certain army composition, and going for the well known abusive build of the day. MC added dark templar to most of his games against July, that's interesting. That was not pure 6 gate. Adel always add a forge and get some upgrades, that's a deviation. That's in these tiny things that starcraft gets interesting. Having 500 games that looks the same and that get absolutly decided in one go are useless. MC and Adelscott both prepare for the later stage of the game, not cruncher, period.
Sorry that players try to win their games instead of trying their hardest solely to impress you.
|
France8650 Posts
On March 28 2011 08:54 craz3d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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 that he did against MVP. Yes and so ? There is a difference between having a certain army composition, and going for the well known abusive build of the day. MC added dark templar to most of his games against July, that's interesting. That was not pure 6 gate. Adel always add a forge and get some upgrades, that's a deviation. That's in these tiny things that starcraft gets interesting. Having 500 games that looks the same and that get absolutly decided in one go are useless. MC and Adelscott both prepare for the later stage of the game, not cruncher, period. When you're at 200/200 with a godly composition, you're AT the "later stage of the game."
With 1 robo, 2 stargate, and what 6 gateways ? So you are at the later stage of the game and all in.
Loose 10 void ray, build 2 to replenish your army, loose to 200/200 7 base untouched and unharassed zerg.
Sorry that players try to win their games instead of trying their hardest solely to impress you.
This has nothing to do with me, I'm pretty sure a lot of players feel the same. Uninteresting play. This does not get anything away from cruncher's wins, it's just boring to see.
|
On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:54 craz3d wrote:On March 28 2011 08:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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 that he did against MVP. Yes and so ? There is a difference between having a certain army composition, and going for the well known abusive build of the day. MC added dark templar to most of his games against July, that's interesting. That was not pure 6 gate. Adel always add a forge and get some upgrades, that's a deviation. That's in these tiny things that starcraft gets interesting. Having 500 games that looks the same and that get absolutly decided in one go are useless. MC and Adelscott both prepare for the later stage of the game, not cruncher, period. When you're at 200/200 with a godly composition, you're AT the "later stage of the game." With 1 robo, 2 stargate, and what 6 gateways ? So you are at the later stage of the game and all in. Loose 10 void ray, build 2 to replenish your army, loose to 200/200 7 base untouched and unharassed zerg. Show nested quote +Sorry that players try to win their games instead of trying their hardest solely to impress you. This has nothing to do with me, I'm pretty sure a lot of players feel the same. Uninteresting play.
Answer this, what is Cruncher's goal in his matches vs idra?
|
|
|
where can you find the vods for these games?
|
On March 28 2011 08:59 Roe wrote:
where can you find the vods for these games?
probably teamliquid's youtube channel later tonight
|
On March 28 2011 08:47 silentsaint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:41 tdt wrote: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.
In addition to that - When you re watch game watch about 12min in. Idra could have destroyed the FE but he only did a half hearted attack lost about 15 units ran and re macroed with the same roaches. Taking the FE would have crippled CrunChers ambitions and let him replace half his army with tier 3. Even before that taking like 7 bases with zero pressure was his first mistake,
|
On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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.
PvZ can certainly be played with an eye to wear the opponent down rather than one-shot them. I believe such styles are usually Stalker-heavy, and rely on FF & Blink to make them safe and viable.
|
Some good games today and also some not quiet so good ones also  . TLO vs Nada was very interesting... TLO played pretty well with some interesting openers but Nada showed what a solid opening is all about. Nada opened almost similarly in all 3 matches but he was able to do pretty well against all sorts of stuff.
Cruncher vs Idra was a disappointment. Just when it seemed like Idra got the number of Cruncher in game 2 he gets too greedy in game 3 and gets rolled by early 5 gate pressure.
Mondragon also showed a way to combat toss air by just rolling them over with heavy ground pressure. Not sure how that strat will do against a similar opening by a top tier toss like MC but it sure seems like something which will cause them some problems.
Overall TSL3 RO 32 has had some great games. Hopefully that trend continues in later rounds.
|
I think the real point is that even if a 200 food push is all in just because you might, some-fucking-how, lose your whole protoss death ball to a zerg, that's not a bad thing. I believe Nony once said on SotG; at some point in the game, you make the decision go all in (in the majority of games). Besides, even if you're adding a couple of robos and gateways, if you lose a 200 food deathball to 7 base zerg you're pretty dead either way.
|
On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:54 craz3d wrote:On March 28 2011 08:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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 that he did against MVP. Yes and so ? There is a difference between having a certain army composition, and going for the well known abusive build of the day. MC added dark templar to most of his games against July, that's interesting. That was not pure 6 gate. Adel always add a forge and get some upgrades, that's a deviation. That's in these tiny things that starcraft gets interesting. Having 500 games that looks the same and that get absolutly decided in one go are useless. MC and Adelscott both prepare for the later stage of the game, not cruncher, period. When you're at 200/200 with a godly composition, you're AT the "later stage of the game." With 1 robo, 2 stargate, and what 6 gateways ? So you are at the later stage of the game and all in. Loose 10 void ray, build 2 to replenish your army, loose to 200/200 7 base untouched and unharassed zerg.
Hint: do not lose 10 Void Ray.
You might as well complain that Protoss can't replace their Sentries in less than two minutes, since you need that time to charge up.
|
On March 28 2011 08:49 craz3d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote: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.
Adel was 3-3 to 1-1 and still lost a shit load of units 20000 to 15000. Lets not pretend GW army is the way to go even against terran. 5 bases to 2 saved adel not that GW a feasible strategy against MMM or RHL.
|
On March 28 2011 08:46 WhiteDog wrote:
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 ?
I don't remember exactly how many production facilities Cruncher had, but he had enough to keep spending the income from three saturated bases and that's all he needed. If he was going to add extra robos to rebuild dead Collosi faster then he was obviously going to do that after he's max, but when he hit 200/200 IdrA suicided all his Corruptors and lost the game.
Cruncher just turtled, he was never in an especially risky position.
Regardless, if you play certain styles, like pure mech as Terran, that doesn't mean you're all in. Going all in means means greatly sacrificing economy and/or tech for a huge attack, or making only workers when you're hugely behind. Cruncher was playing safe, he wasn't taking huge risks, he wasn't sacrificing his economy and he wasn't all in. If _all_ his units die he loses, that doesn't mean he's all in, that's just how the race works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1480
448
300
EPT
