|
Balance whining will result in a ban |
Q: Your first round opponent is a relatively unknown player - Cruncher. What are your thoughts about him?
I'm approaching the match as if it were a walkover
:O
|
On March 28 2011 09:03 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote: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.
Or : Harass the zerg, don't let him go 7 bases, don't let him have that maccro that let him get instant 200/200 whenever he wants.
Or : add more stargate, build void ray faster.
But you would not do that because you just want your 200/200 void/colo ball to roll zerg. No need keeping his expo in check, no need adding on more stargate.
|
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.
I don't think you play at a high enough level to understand the matchup. You are not supposed to lose important units like Collossi or VRs and to a lesser extent Sentries. If you lose your army as P, you lose the game in almost all cases against a Zerg opponent. The same does not hold true for the Zerg player who can replenish their army in no time. So yes, 1 robo and 2 stargate while being chronoboosted is enough to replenish the important units in your army, which you shouldn't be losing in large amounts anyways.
|
Wikileaks found the secret copy&paste site of IdrA fans:
IdrA loses a short ZvT: stupid Terran all-ins nothing one can do about that
IdrA loses a long ZvT: God Zerg late game is a joke, bioball so OP, mech so OP, biomech so OP
IdrA loses a short ZvP: retarded Protoss all-ins nothing one can do about that
IdrA loses a long ZvP: fucking imba Toss army, nothing one can do about that
or brand new: fucking Toss with their 3-base 200/200 all-ins, can't play a macro game
IdrA loses a ZvZ series: god, ZvZ is so luck-based
IdrA wins any of these: Wow IdrA is such a God, amazing play
He never ever ever makes mistakes. IdrA never loses, his opponents just abuse the game. Being a good StarCraft II player means: Max out the fastest. Everything else has to be fixed by Blizzard.
If IdrA fanboys were to balance the game Zerg 200/200 would be as strong as Protoss 200/200 but cost the same as now, and so on and so on...
|
On March 28 2011 09:06 craz3d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote: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. I don't think you play at a high enough level to understand the matchup. You are not supposed to lose important units like Collossi or VRs and to a lesser extent Sentries. If you lose your army as P, you lose the game in almost all cases against a Zerg opponent. The same does not hold true for the Zerg player who can replenish their army in no time. So yes, 1 robo and 2 stargate while being chronoboosted is enough to replenish the important units in your army, which you shouldn't be losing in large amounts anyways.
I'm 3k3 eu master player (not saying it's good, but most of my opponent look at replay and know how to follow a bo). Most of the protoss i play at least go for 2 robo. Some switch from colo dead ball to stalker/immo/templar (before patch yes). A lot of protoss harass with templar/dt, deny expands. Most of them makes a lot of expand with a lot of photon / gateways. That's just playstyle. Cruncher play this way, obviously he wins with it, and a lot of protoss do the same and many don't.
|
On March 28 2011 09:00 Severedevil 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. 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.
I agree, but won't you also agree that its safer to go for the deathball? One messed up FF or a couple of good hits from an Infestor and you could potentially lose all your Stalkers.
|
On March 28 2011 08:58 Oscatron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote: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. 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?
That's completely flawed logic. Everyones goal is to win. Does that mean that maphacking should be used by everyone, because everyone should play to win?
Is using an abusive build the same as cheating? Most people would say absolutely not, but when the " i " word that is forbidden comes into play, that mentality changes in people.
Take a MMO for example. Say there is a sword, that is absurdly overpowered. They then nerf it, but someone retained a bugged one (by chance, not hacking) and used it to win a PvP tourney. Does he not deserve praise for using everything in his arsenal to win? Play to win right? No. In most games he would be DQ'ed or banned.
|
Looks like idra trying to get into his head and failed. Only screwed himself.
|
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. This does not get anything away from cruncher's wins, it's just boring to see.
Really? Cause it seemed like this whole time you were criticizing Cruncher but now it's the state of the game that you don't like? Make up your mind.
|
On March 28 2011 09:10 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:58 Oscatron wrote:On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Answer this, what is Cruncher's goal in his matches vs idra? That's completely flawed logic. Everyones goal is to win. Does that mean that maphacking should be used by everyone, because everyone should play to win? Is using an abusive build the same as cheating? Most people would say absolutely not, but when the " i " word that is forbidden comes into play, that mentality changes in people. Take a MMO for example. Say there is a sword, that is absurdly overpowered. They then nerf it, but someone retained a bugged one (by chance, not hacking) and used it to win a PvP tourney. Does he not deserve praise for using everything in his arsenal to win? Play to win right? No. In most games he would be DQ'ed or banned.
That would be comparable to warping in immortals, not... using good strategies. Sigh.
Idra really lost at least the third game all by himself.
|
On March 28 2011 09:11 skycaptain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote: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. 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. Really? Cause it seemed like this whole time you were criticizing Cruncher but now it's the state of the game that you don't like? Make up your mind.
It's the state of the game, but cruncher is responsible for not digging the game and only using abusive style ? He still won, this has nothing to do with it.
|
On March 28 2011 09:03 The KY wrote:
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.
I agree with this. Committing your 200/200 army to a fight is, in some sense, all in because if you lose it you lose, but it's not the same as taking a huge risk. You have to commit your army to win, that's how the game works. "All in" typically refers to making a huge gamble, and that's where the negative connotation comes from. When WhiteDog here tries to claim that Cruncher was all in he wants to apply the negative connotation and that's what I don't agree with. Cruncher was risk averse, he turtled, that's not what we mean by "all in"-
|
On March 28 2011 09:06 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 09:03 Severedevil wrote:On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Or : Harass the zerg, don't let him go 7 bases, don't let him have that maccro that let him get instant 200/200 whenever he wants. Or : add more stargate, build void ray faster. But you would not do that because you just want your 200/200 void/colo ball to roll zerg. No need keeping his expo in check, no need adding on more stargate.
you dont understand. the 200/200 protoss deathball with good composition of 10+VR 4collo sentries stalker and mothership in the hands of a good protoss loses between 8-20 psi vs a 200/200 zerg army. If a toss secures 4 bases with cannons and stuff it is completely irrelevant that zerg has 7 or 8 bases, he cannot remax and regroup fast enough if toss is going around attacking to ever take down the deathball
|
Reading this thread makes me ridiculously happy. So many tears.
I must watch these games.
Either way, I'm personally glad Idra's out early, I've always been an anti-fan.
Glad Nada won too, finally some games going the way I wish they were. Mondragon results are pretty surprising, but nice, Haypro results are sad.
Congrats to the winners.
|
On March 28 2011 07:23 starcraft2rush wrote:
are there any zergs left to cheer for in the tsl?
I personally liked MYM.Mondragon's calm and cool way he handled and air rush. So yeah, I would say there are still cool Zerg left. 
|
On March 28 2011 09:10 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:58 Oscatron wrote:On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Answer this, what is Cruncher's goal in his matches vs idra? That's completely flawed logic. Everyones goal is to win. Does that mean that maphacking should be used by everyone, because everyone should play to win? Is using an abusive build the same as cheating? Most people would say absolutely not, but when the " i " word that is forbidden comes into play, that mentality changes in people. Take a MMO for example. Say there is a sword, that is absurdly overpowered. They then nerf it, but someone retained a bugged one (by chance, not hacking) and used it to win a PvP tourney. Does he not deserve praise for using everything in his arsenal to win? Play to win right? No. In most games he would be DQ'ed or banned.
This thread is really going to hell. Cruncher played 3 fairly standard PvZ games and you're somehow equating that to map hacking? What the hell are you smoking?
The only person with flawed logic here is you.
|
On March 28 2011 09:06 Leviance wrote:
Wikileaks found the secret copy&paste site of IdrA fans:
IdrA loses a short ZvT: stupid Terran all-ins nothing one can do about that
IdrA loses a long ZvT: God Zerg late game is a joke, bioball so OP, mech so OP, biomech so OP
IdrA loses a short ZvP: retarded Protoss all-ins nothing one can do about that
IdrA loses a long ZvP: fucking imba Toss army, nothing one can do about that
or brand new: fucking Toss with their 3-base 200/200 all-ins, can't play a macro game
IdrA loses a ZvZ series: god, ZvZ is so luck-based
IdrA wins any of these: Wow IdrA is such a God, amazing play
He never ever ever makes mistakes. IdrA never loses, his opponents just abuse the game. Being a good StarCraft II player means: Max out the fastest. Everything else has to be fixed by Blizzard.
If IdrA fanboys were to balance the game Zerg 200/200 would be as strong as Protoss 200/200 but cost the same as now, and so on and so on...
This is so true.
Just a note Toss is supposed to be imba at 200/200. By Blizzard design.
Toss is supposed to be expensive and strong. That's how they were in BW too.
|
On March 28 2011 09:10 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 08:58 Oscatron wrote:On March 28 2011 08:57 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Answer this, what is Cruncher's goal in his matches vs idra? That's completely flawed logic. Everyones goal is to win. Does that mean that maphacking should be used by everyone, because everyone should play to win? Is using an abusive build the same as cheating? Most people would say absolutely not, but when the " i " word that is forbidden comes into play, that mentality changes in people. Take a MMO for example. Say there is a sword, that is absurdly overpowered. They then nerf it, but someone retained a bugged one (by chance, not hacking) and used it to win a PvP tourney. Does he not deserve praise for using everything in his arsenal to win? Play to win right? No. In most games he would be DQ'ed or banned.
Yea, except maphacking and using illegal bugs is cheating. There is no such thing as play to win right. If you've won, you've played right. If you've lost, you need to go home and do your homework better next time.
|
On March 28 2011 09:16 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 09:06 Leviance wrote:
Wikileaks found the secret copy&paste site of IdrA fans:
IdrA loses a short ZvT: stupid Terran all-ins nothing one can do about that
IdrA loses a long ZvT: God Zerg late game is a joke, bioball so OP, mech so OP, biomech so OP
IdrA loses a short ZvP: retarded Protoss all-ins nothing one can do about that
IdrA loses a long ZvP: fucking imba Toss army, nothing one can do about that
or brand new: fucking Toss with their 3-base 200/200 all-ins, can't play a macro game
IdrA loses a ZvZ series: god, ZvZ is so luck-based
IdrA wins any of these: Wow IdrA is such a God, amazing play
He never ever ever makes mistakes. IdrA never loses, his opponents just abuse the game. Being a good StarCraft II player means: Max out the fastest. Everything else has to be fixed by Blizzard.
If IdrA fanboys were to balance the game Zerg 200/200 would be as strong as Protoss 200/200 but cost the same as now, and so on and so on...
This is so true. Just a note Toss is supposed to be imba at 200/200. By Blizzard design. Toss is supposed to be expensive and strong. That's how they were in BW too.
no terran 200/200 in bw was better than toss 200/200 (unless it was all carriers)
|
On March 28 2011 09:06 Leviance wrote:
Wikileaks found the secret copy&paste site of IdrA fans:
IdrA loses a short ZvT: stupid Terran all-ins nothing one can do about that
IdrA loses a long ZvT: God Zerg late game is a joke, bioball so OP, mech so OP, biomech so OP
IdrA loses a short ZvP: retarded Protoss all-ins nothing one can do about that
IdrA loses a long ZvP: fucking imba Toss army, nothing one can do about that
or brand new: fucking Toss with their 3-base 200/200 all-ins, can't play a macro game
IdrA loses a ZvZ series: god, ZvZ is so luck-based
IdrA wins any of these: Wow IdrA is such a God, amazing play
He never ever ever makes mistakes. IdrA never loses, his opponents just abuse the game. Being a good StarCraft II player means: Max out the fastest. Everything else has to be fixed by Blizzard.
If IdrA fanboys were to balance the game Zerg 200/200 would be as strong as Protoss 200/200 but cost the same as now, and so on and so on...
Hahaha true tbh
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
