EPTOn March 28 2011 09:13 WhiteDog wrote:
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.
Show nested quote +
On March 28 2011 09:11 skycaptain wrote:
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 08:57 WhiteDog wrote:
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.
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 08:54 craz3d wrote:
When you're at 200/200 with a godly composition, you're AT the "later stage of the game."
On March 28 2011 08:53 WhiteDog wrote:
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 08:49 craz3d wrote:
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.
On March 28 2011 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:
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.
On March 28 2011 08:33 skycaptain wrote:
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.
On March 28 2011 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:
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.
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.
[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. 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.
People need to get off CrunCher's balls seriously. He won fair and square. Your definition of all-in seems to define every attack in SC2. Don't hate the player.
