|
Its time to enjoy the matches, keep the whining out of this thread. GL HF!
Also, don't reply to the whining and ignore it: have faith in the mods, we read every post and act swiftly. You're making it worse. Enjoy! |
Zerg Bretheren,
It is time to pull up the bibs, put on our big boy pants, and head back to the drawing board. All this whine gets us nowhere. Just like your race, you MUST learn to be creative, adapt, and evolve, lest you want to get left in the dust. Thanks Brothers & Sisters, Swarm on!
Signed, Slardar
@ The Series - Mondragon made several mistakes that lost him critical games, (2,3,5). I would argue it was more of Mondragon's misjudgment than Cruncher's play that won him the series(not to take anything away from him, his defense was GOOD.)
G2 - He over-committed, simple as that. He DEALT the damage that was needed, Nexus's fell, Colossi littered the Shakura's Plateau, yet Mondragon continued past the point of no return.
A) He was losing more than he was gaining eventually, he had to muster a main army.
B) Once the Protoss cluster gets large enough, they can do simply as what CrunCher did, Attack and deal critical damage or straight up win the game. Mondragon miscalculated the army, or didn't expect CrunCher to counter, so he continued to be aggressive. Also he lost a few critical Corrupters that may have helped him survive.
G3- Well we all know.
G5- Mutalisk isn't a passive unit imo Ladies & Gentleman, he waited until he had a cluster(CrunCher had storm already at this point, that's how long he delayed harassing), not to mention he feared using the Muta, he had to creative a roach diversion before going in with them. I think that's just a counter-intuitive style when it comes to a Mutalisk opening. He played exceptionally well from then on, but the efficiency of the P army just outlasted him in the end.
-End Rant- Go Naniwa! Go Boxer!
|
On April 18 2011 06:46 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:45 butchji wrote:On April 18 2011 06:43 Yaotzin wrote:
The way people assume the Zerg player is better in every.single.case. is pathetic. Spending all your money on roaches so you have a higher supply doesn't mean you're winning or skilled you know. Anyone can do it.
Mondragon did hatch first which is dumb. He then responded to the inevitable cannons TERRIBLY.
He built mutas and basically didn't harass to them. Again, terrible play.
Maybe Mondragon - cool or not - simply isn't very good. trolls <3 Not trolling just sick to death of all the Zerg whining when the Zerg player isn't even good. What the fuck has Mondragon ever done in SC2? Beat Zeerax? Wow.
He countered void rays and phoenicians with roaches.
That's a VERY useful talent toi have.
|
On April 18 2011 06:18 Kazang wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:10 Zeri wrote:On April 18 2011 06:02 iGod.blue wrote:The better player always wins. Today, Cruncher was the better player.
qft If the better player always wins theres no point in playing the game unless you are redefining 'better player' as whoever wins the game. When people say things like "the better player always wins" its intentionally ambiguous and stupid. If you truly believe that, then you cannot judge players outside of win/loss ratio at all, and cannot compare players other than head to head games, and even further, all comparisons of 2 players mean nothing until the game is even played. So either you truly mean what you say and better stick to that belief and never judge players outside of head to head win/loss or you are a misguided idiot. You are the misguided one here. "The better player always wins. Today, Cruncher was the better player." TODAY in this best of 5 Cruncher played better, thus he won. Simple as that.
So you define the better player as the one who wins. Fine.
Then the statement "the better player always wins" becomes the statement "the player who wins always wins." IMO, that's kind a useless statement to make.
Now there's a lot of whining going on in here on both sides. But taking some hardline stance based on a patently absurd definition of "better" doesn't really serve to alleviate the situation.
|
On April 18 2011 06:42 Pwere wrote:
You can't go ultras vs blink stalker+HT, as he can morph into 2-3 archons, warp in a round of zealot, and crush any amount of ultras you have. On paper ultras are supposed to be the counter to zealots because Ultras can do AOE vs lots and with armor upgrades can really reduce the attack of the zealot which only starts at 8.
Plus, hydras aren't cost effective vs blink stalkers either, as the blink stalkers will choose where and when to engage, and can win a straight up fight off creep easily. In one of Idra's tutorial videos he actually points out that hydras are actually a very effective counter to blink stalkers because they (unlike the roaches) deal damage so quickly the stalkers don't have time to retreat...and if you do retreat a couple of stalkers you dramatically increase the focus firing of the hydras onto the remaining stalkers. If the stalkers mass retreat, then the hydras can just march into the toss base. Folks...hydras are AMAZING vs stalkers...play around with a unit tester if you don't believe me. There is a reason why Idra in almost all his ZvP produces so many of them even though he knows colossi will be coming out.
|
On April 18 2011 06:48 DonaldLee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:39 freetgy wrote:On April 18 2011 06:32 entropius wrote:
Do you really want it to get to the point where going into a tournament you already know the odds will always be 3-2 in favor of Z in PvZ, 3-1 in TvP?
I want it to get to the point where the odds are even. the odds should be tried to get even without Blizzard touching the game first. There are so many possible strategies, that could work and needs to be tested. Though it might a little bit harder to create stable builds for Zerg since their Mechanics are much more versatile that the other races, those Strategies do exist. Someone just has to find and refine them. Blizzard should be only the last angle to take action if nothing else works. The last patch is quite fresh and still isn't fully fleshed out. But since then alot of Infestors build have popped out that are quite strong against Protoss. perfection of builds needs time. Unfortunately, that's not how people think. It's funny, too, because if Blizzard keeps tweaking things as new strategies get developed (like most people seem to want), it'll actually end up being nearly impossible to balance. I'm not saying it's balanced now, but if it is, any changes they make disrupt it, and if something changes in the metagame, it becomes perceptively imbalanced again. It's a tough spot to be in, since SC2 is an active competitive game with a lot of eyes watching it. Any changes you make are either the right call, or just band-aids to problems outside of their control. Vultures are a classic example. How many people, when they first picked up the game thought "Man, these things are terrible, they don't do any damage to anything!" And they turn out to be a staple unit for BW Terran with zero changes ever.
And on the other hand WC3 was considered unbalanced and abandoned by Blizzard.
We don't know how SC2 is going to turn out. There's a possibility that Zergs can figure out a way to win, but there's also a possibility that they can't.
|
On April 18 2011 06:04 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:01 Vansetsu wrote:
I think mondi really out thought cruncher a lot of those games. I think mondi is certainly a better player all around, I just think his plan fell apart in game 3 when he tried the meta-muta trick. He had 2 chances to meta the mutas vs phoenix ratio, and both times he got exposed, it also didn't help he wasn't able to get the attack upgrade(s) for the mutas as well (infestors would have worked as well, but I can see why he wasn't able to go that route with what he had to assume was on the field). Oh well, my LB's went through, but Mondi had me scared, certainly showed the better play today. No, he didn't outthink Cruncher at all. If he out thought Cruncher he would not have lost 3-1. believe it or not, zergs do sometimes win against protoss. In this case, Mondragon did not. Just because he attacks from different angles, then loses them, does not make his play superior. Just because he kills some probes then proceeds to lose 20 mutalisks does not make him a superior player. Being unable to hold off a basic cannon rush does not make him a superior player. This is ridiculous. someone PLEASE explain how Mondragon outplayed Cruncher here? Watch the VODs again and actually look at what Cruncher is doing. You're just throwing out words due to fanboyisms. I don't particularly like Cruncher but people saying he didn't win through outplaying Mondragon are ridiculous.
Reasons your reply is stupid
#1: "You're just throwing out words due to fanboyisms." - I am personally not a fan of either player. Stupid assumptions and trollings like this statement are why these LR threads and forums get suckier everyday. The "word(s)" portion of this makes it even stupider.
#2 "If he out thought Cruncher he would not have lost 3-1." Out thinking a player and out playing a player are 2 completely different things. I'm sure a lot of forum warriors who understand the game on a high enough level, vicariously playing through a pro's mechanics they lack could out think cruncher's play. Playing and theory crafting are 2 separate things.
3# "believe it or not, zergs do sometimes win against protoss." Another assumption, this time that I base my statement on the assumed premise that I think PvZ is un-winnable. Again, trollworthy, as well as stupid.
To go back to my reasoning of why it think Mondragon showed the better play and thinking in this series, (regardless if the meaning of that is lost to the kind troll who wanted to respond to my personal opinion) overall throughout the games, Mondragon was constantly attacking and reacting to what he saw. He multitasked better than cruncher imo. He showed a strong meta in game 4 and in game 2.
Just because he didn't succeed in the games, doesn't necessarily make it inferior thinking or play. Mondragon had great ideas, but just didn't make the best battle decisions, and either didn't make the best mid-end game transitions, or got unlucky sticking on his guns with his meta choices. in a nutshell, Mondragon looked like a very balanced model of how zergs may play out pvz in the future, though Mondragon himself imo is not at the mechanical level of a player such as Idra (in relative SC2 terms yet). Cruncher on the other hand, played a sloppy, stagnant version of (his) PvZ... often moving his entire army to one engagement to the other, often only to be saved by static defense and unit composition.
While the state of PvZ is certainly considered in P's favor right now, someone like ST-Ace or Nani ect's PvZ is miles ahead compared to Crunchers sloppiness. Mondragons ZvP is something that is right now unique, and strong if played correctly. In that respect, I can say Cruncher, while winning, did not "play" better that Mond - Mond playing a unique and effective style vs a standard 3 baseish turtle (save the meta game in game 4) is much better "play" as far as I'm concerned. And as better Z's pick up this kind of thinking, with better mechanics and refinements, I believe the zvp match up will change dramatically.
And finally, as if it would matter, I play Protoss. And I am a fan of neither player, though I enjoyed mondragon's thought process. I LB on Cruncher, and I won, as I tend to win most of my LB /trollface
|
my 2 favs won the first match...then lost the rest. screw you protoss players
User was warned for this post
|
For anyone thinking PvZ is imbalanced I present to you 107 pages of Protoss Tears from November 2010. 107 Pages of Protoss Thinking they where Underpowered. November 2010
Dont look at that thinking they didn't know how strong they where look at it as Protoss players have been where many Zerg players think their race is Currently in the State of the Game. The point is the match up isnt broken it just looks that way. When your the one affected by it.
If anyone was following Sc2 during that time. They should realize that this is how the game works its aways going to sway. If anyone actually takes to the time to look through that thread you will see intelligent discussion soon become consumed by balance whines and people think all hope is lost. Just something to think about.
|
K, I believe Zerg is underpowered and ZvP is a joke. Now, that being said, in this case a little more credit should be given to Cruncher. As awful as he played in game 1, the last game was actually quite good. His phoenix were constantly active, he was pressuring, and he did a great job at taking map control with those blink stalkers toward the end.
About game 2: it's a little deceptive. It was the classic defender vs aggressor situation, with mondi attacking and dropping everywhere and cruncher defending. It's pretty easy to just call ZvP imba on that game and say mondragon deserved the win but the thing is his drops never really put him ahead. The collosus snipes and the nexus snipe were great, yes, but if you look at the total net game of all the aggresion he did, it wasn't as good as it looked. Cruncher did a nice job defending and minimizing his losses, and each drop put cruncher a little further ahead. So yea, it seemed Mondi having to play 100x better and Cruncher not doing anything but that's usually what a game of that dynamic looks like.
As an example, heres a game between Jaedong and Bisu on Bluestorm. (its also one of the best ZvPs : D)
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKAnvRZkh-4&feature=related
Basically the whole game bisu is harassing and pressuring and Jaedong looks like he's getting raped. Bisu's storming lurkers, storm dropping, reaver harassing, dropping zealots to snipe hatcheries, etc, while Jaedong is just sitting there taking it. Bisu kills a ton shit, yet at the end of the game Jaedong has hydras, moves out, and absolutely rolls Bisu. Why? Bisu's attacks never really did their cost. For every few drones he stormed he would lose a shuttle and really costly templars. Similarly, mondi's drops never did their worth. Yes, he had the harder role but Mondragon's game plan really brought that on himself, and when his drops ultimately didn't pan out it's not too surprising Cruncher rolled him. I hate Protoss as much as any Zerg, but I think a little more credit is due to cruncher and a little less to ZvP imbalance for that game.
|
On April 18 2011 06:51 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:48 DonaldLee wrote:On April 18 2011 06:39 freetgy wrote:On April 18 2011 06:32 entropius wrote:
Do you really want it to get to the point where going into a tournament you already know the odds will always be 3-2 in favor of Z in PvZ, 3-1 in TvP?
I want it to get to the point where the odds are even. the odds should be tried to get even without Blizzard touching the game first. There are so many possible strategies, that could work and needs to be tested. Though it might a little bit harder to create stable builds for Zerg since their Mechanics are much more versatile that the other races, those Strategies do exist. Someone just has to find and refine them. Blizzard should be only the last angle to take action if nothing else works. The last patch is quite fresh and still isn't fully fleshed out. But since then alot of Infestors build have popped out that are quite strong against Protoss. perfection of builds needs time. Unfortunately, that's not how people think. It's funny, too, because if Blizzard keeps tweaking things as new strategies get developed (like most people seem to want), it'll actually end up being nearly impossible to balance. I'm not saying it's balanced now, but if it is, any changes they make disrupt it, and if something changes in the metagame, it becomes perceptively imbalanced again. It's a tough spot to be in, since SC2 is an active competitive game with a lot of eyes watching it. Any changes you make are either the right call, or just band-aids to problems outside of their control. Vultures are a classic example. How many people, when they first picked up the game thought "Man, these things are terrible, they don't do any damage to anything!" And they turn out to be a staple unit for BW Terran with zero changes ever. And on the other hand WC3 was considered unbalanced and abandoned by Blizzard. We don't know how SC2 is going to turn out. There's a possibility that Zergs can figure out a way to win, but there's also a possibility that they can't.
Agreed. And to be perfectly honest, I'm actually of the opinion that it's not the zerg players' faults. But we don't know, and far too many people seem to think that they do.
|
On April 18 2011 06:44 Azarkon wrote:
The backbone of the Protoss late-game vs. Zerg is basically mass blink stalkers. Retaining stalker count is everything. The high-tech units are there to support. How many colossi you mass really isn't as important as how many stalkers you mass as it's those crucial units that give Protoss the versatility to handle Zerg tech switches.
Every Protoss unit but the stalker is basically specialized. For this reason the main variation in Protoss composition comes from what you add to your stalker army. If Zerg goes muta ling or baneling, you add HTs. If Zerg goes roaches or ultras, you add immortals. If Zerg goes hydras, you add colossi. If Zerg goes broodlord you might consider adding some void rays.
The point of getting Infestors is to cut down on that stalker count. Stalkers are relatively expensive, and they are armored, so they take extra damage from FG, and when held in place by FG they will fall cost efficiently to roaches. The issue with going Infestors however is that Blink Stalkers can snipe your Infestors if the Protoss has fast reaction time, and Colossi in the back can do the same. Having the level of control necessary to land FGs and keep down the number of stalkers is going to be critical to doing well.
Excellent post.
|
On April 18 2011 06:51 Fungal Growth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:42 Pwere wrote:
You can't go ultras vs blink stalker+HT, as he can morph into 2-3 archons, warp in a round of zealot, and crush any amount of ultras you have. On paper ultras are supposed to be the counter to zealots because Ultras can do AOE vs lots and with armor upgrades can really reduce the attack of the zealot which only starts at 8. Show nested quote +Plus, hydras aren't cost effective vs blink stalkers either, as the blink stalkers will choose where and when to engage, and can win a straight up fight off creep easily. In one of Idra's tutorial videos he actually points out that hydras are actually a very effective counter to blink stalkers because they (unlike the roaches) deal damage so quickly the stalkers don't have time to retreat...and if you do retreat a couple of stalkers you dramatically increase the focus firing of the hydras onto the remaining stalkers. If the stalkers mass retreat, then the hydras can just march into the toss base. Folks...hydras are AMAZING vs stalkers...play around with a unit tester if you don't believe me. There is a reason why Idra in almost all his ZvP produces so many of them even though he knows colossi will be coming out.
And hydras melt in seconds to storm, as we've seen in Morrow vs Nightend and Idra vs MC. They're too slow to avoid them off creep , forcefields make them worthless, and blink stalkers can surround them to force them to sit through a storm.
|
On April 18 2011 06:49 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:42 Sky Net wrote:On April 18 2011 06:34 mordk wrote:On April 18 2011 06:32 Sky Net wrote:On April 18 2011 06:22 mordk wrote:Well, time for some predictions  MC 3-1  ThorZaINAdelscott 0-3 KasBoxeR 3-2 HasuObsNaNiwa 3-0 CrunCherMC will probably lose one game being caught a little off guard by thorzain's style. But he'll catch up. Training with Jinro is going to serve him well. Kas is going to roll adelscott. He'll play well in game one but lose anyway and then tilt and make horrible mistakes and lose terribly. Happens all the time. BoxeR vs Hasuobs is probably the most interesting Ro8 matchup. Hard to predict. I think hasuobs' PvT ain't too good, while BoxeR's TvP is so patient and solid. I think lag might screw BoxeR up a bit, 3-2 is the correct prediction imo. Naniwa is going to crush cruncher so hard it will make him look bronze league. He's on a whole different level of play. I give cruncher absolutely 0% chances he'll win. Some of Cruncher's PvP results: 2-0 vs Kiwikaki, 2-0 vs oGsInca. I consider Naniwa the favorite as well, but to say Cruncher has absolutely no chance to win is simply ignorant. I didn't ever say Cruncher's PvP was bad. I don't know where you read that. I'm pretty confident in naniwa's ability in PvP, he's a level above cruncher. "0% chance he'll win" & "will make him look bronze league" don't imply his PvP is bad?? Kiwi certainly didn't look bronze league against Naniwa in the MLG finals (he took 2 games off him) and as I pointed out Cruncher has beaten Kiwi in addition to other elite protosses. Your post came off as biased by the Cruncher hate in the thread, but I could be wrong. Both quoted statements account for my confidence on naniwa's strenght in the matchup... see how it says "HE will MAKE him LOOK bronze league", never stated he isn't good. While it's true I dislike Cruncher that's got no relation with my prediction. I just think naniwa is too strong atm, only white-ra and MC can beat him in a PvP imo, even considering how volatile PvP is. I also think he's a strong contender to take TSL3, very strong actually. I don't see him losing a finals to anyone but MC, maybe Kas.
You don't play protoss do you... PvP is so volatile anyone can win at any time.
|
On April 18 2011 06:54 oZii wrote:For anyone thinking PvZ is imbalanced I present to you 107 pages of Protoss Tears from November 2010. 107 Pages of Protoss Thinking they where Underpowered. November 2010Dont look at that thinking they didn't know how strong they where look at it as Protoss players have been where many Zerg players think their race is Currently in the State of the Game. The point is the match up isnt broken it just looks that way. When your the one affected by it.
Notice how they complain and people immediately point out base level obvious observations and it's also a thread based entirely on the results of 2 tournaments (that zerg, other than winning, were also underrepresented in) and is the ONLY time P players complained.
|
On April 18 2011 06:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:54 oZii wrote:For anyone thinking PvZ is imbalanced I present to you 107 pages of Protoss Tears from November 2010. 107 Pages of Protoss Thinking they where Underpowered. November 2010Dont look at that thinking they didn't know how strong they where look at it as Protoss players have been where many Zerg players think their race is Currently in the State of the Game. The point is the match up isnt broken it just looks that way. When your the one affected by it. Notice how they complain and people immediately point out base level obvious observations and it's also a thread based entirely on the results of 2 tournaments (that zerg, other than winning, were also underrepresented in) and is the ONLY time P players complained.
No it isn't the only time. It's also the same situation zergs are in now. Explore you race
|
I really don't want to believe that Z is UP, but the more and more high end games I watch this certainly seems to be the case. There are definetley points in the game where the zerg player just can't do anything to stop the huge force that is coming down on them.
I'm not usre if protoss needs a nerf but I do believe zerg do need some sort of a buff, i'm thinking hydras will be the next unit to receive that.
I just hope Blizz doesn't balance this game the way they do WoW, where nerfing is the easier way out
|
On April 18 2011 07:05 zasda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:59 Logo wrote:On April 18 2011 06:54 oZii wrote:For anyone thinking PvZ is imbalanced I present to you 107 pages of Protoss Tears from November 2010. 107 Pages of Protoss Thinking they where Underpowered. November 2010Dont look at that thinking they didn't know how strong they where look at it as Protoss players have been where many Zerg players think their race is Currently in the State of the Game. The point is the match up isnt broken it just looks that way. When your the one affected by it. Notice how they complain and people immediately point out base level obvious observations and it's also a thread based entirely on the results of 2 tournaments (that zerg, other than winning, were also underrepresented in) and is the ONLY time P players complained. No it isn't the only time. It's also the same situation zergs are in now. Explore you race
You're right, zergs havent been doing that for months.
|
On April 18 2011 06:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:54 oZii wrote:For anyone thinking PvZ is imbalanced I present to you 107 pages of Protoss Tears from November 2010. 107 Pages of Protoss Thinking they where Underpowered. November 2010Dont look at that thinking they didn't know how strong they where look at it as Protoss players have been where many Zerg players think their race is Currently in the State of the Game. The point is the match up isnt broken it just looks that way. When your the one affected by it. Notice how they complain and people immediately point out base level obvious observations and it's also a thread based entirely on the results of 2 tournaments (that zerg, other than winning, were also underrepresented in) and is the ONLY time P players complained.
As many in this thread are using only this tournament or tournaments from just this month.
I'll do a little leg work for you. MLG is mentioned on page 3 and 12. This thread lasted until GSL 3 find that on page 100 and Blizzcon is refrenced on page 104 so yea. You can't just look at the first page and summarize the entire thread.
|
Anywon who says Protoss isn't an overpowered race is in a box. Especially in PvZ (i am terran btw)
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Were the matches pretty fast today? I wasn't home and I missed everything. When will the vids be up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
