| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
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! | ||
|
Zynxz
Sweden13 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:08 sharktopus. wrote: Were the matches pretty fast today? I wasn't home and I missed everything. When will the vids be up? They are usually up within one day. Really nice  | ||
|
mprs
Canada2933 Posts
On April 18 2011 06:34 forsooth wrote: You do realize that fungal already annihilates Terran bio, right? Buffing it further would be insane. You do realize that he wasn't trying to hide his sarcasm :S Looking past the sarcasm, he is saying that Blizzard already buffed infestors to beat stalker balls. And they are good at it. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On April 18 2011 06:59 sickoota wrote: You don't play protoss do you... PvP is so volatile anyone can win at any time. I do play protoss, and I watch SC2 all day lol. Some players have achieved remarkable consistency in PvP. Mc for example has like >80% win rate in PvP. If you read carfeully, I fully understand PvP's volatility, however I don't think "anyone" can win at any time. There's a distinct "hierarchy" of skill in PvP and it's certainly visible Tier 1: MC Tier 2: White-ra, Naniwa, Inca Tier 3: HuK, Kiwikaki, Hasuobs (Add most korean protoss) Tier 4: Axslav After these come all other protoss. It's obviously possible that Cruncher takes a game off nani, it's pretty obvious 0% chance is a bit overzealous, but it's just an exaggeration complementing how strong I feel naniwa is at the moment. Don't take everything so literal, after all, cruncher did knock out Inca 2-0 in FXOpenis, and Inca is considered almost a PvP god. I still believe, from seeing cruncher's and naniwa's play, that cruncher's PvP looks normal and naniwa's looks exceptional. In my opinion anyways. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:08 sharktopus. wrote: Were the matches pretty fast today? I wasn't home and I missed everything. When will the vids be up? um nope, vods should be up tonight alot of gg's today I felt like. I would watch for entertainment value | ||
|
Tracedragon
United States948 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:11 mprs wrote: You do realize that he wasn't trying to hide his sarcasm :S Looking past the sarcasm, he is saying that Blizzard already buffed infestors to beat stalker balls. And they are good at it. I love the sarcasm all over this thread and how people interpret things so literally. =3 | ||
|
Tekkerz
United Kingdom216 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:11 mordk wrote: I do play protoss, and I watch SC2 all day lol. Some players have achieved remarkable consistency in PvP. Mc for example has like >80% win rate in PvP. If you read carfeully, I fully understand PvP's volatility, however I don't think "anyone" can win at any time. There's a distinct "hierarchy" of skill in PvP and it's certainly visible Tier 1: MC Tier 2: White-ra, Naniwa, Inca Tier 3: HuK, Kiwikaki, Hasuobs (Add most korean protoss) Tier 4: Axslav After these come all other protoss. It's obviously possible that Cruncher takes a game off nani, it's pretty obvious 0% chance is a bit overzealous, but it's just an exaggeration complementing how strong I feel naniwa is at the moment. Don't take everything so literal, after all, cruncher did knock out Inca 2-0 in FXOpenis, and Inca is considered almost a PvP god. I still believe, from seeing cruncher's and naniwa's play, that cruncher's PvP looks normal and naniwa's looks exceptional. In my opinion anyways. someone had to point it out  | ||
|
VoirDire
Sweden1923 Posts
I disagree, actually. In the lategame, stalkers are what vultures were in sc1 T-mech style. They are mobile buffer units, meant for map control/harass/dealing with drops etc, and from preventing the real muscle (void/colossus) from getting picked of. Most zerg units are pretty cost effective against stalkers. The only time in lategame when you'd want to focus on your stalker-army is if the Z has overproduced corrupters. | ||
|
oZii
United States1198 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:07 sGDaevil wrote: Anywon who says Protoss isn't an overpowered race is in a box. Especially in PvZ (i am terran btw) Cause your terran doesn't help a post like that at all. Just means your not really familiar with either of the races involved outside of what you see and how you play against P and how you play against Z. Which doesn't deal with PvZ. So I am terran BTW doesnt really help the discussion. | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
| ||
|
raist
Canada90 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:15 branflakes14 wrote: I'm gonna be watching the next Funday Monday with interest. What is it?? | ||
|
Sebast1aan
Belgium163 Posts
 RO16 day 3 & 4 were definately very entertaining! | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:11 mordk wrote: I do play protoss, and I watch SC2 all day lol. Some players have achieved remarkable consistency in PvP. Mc for example has like >80% win rate in PvP. If you read carfeully, I fully understand PvP's volatility, however I don't think "anyone" can win at any time. There's a distinct "hierarchy" of skill in PvP and it's certainly visible Tier 1: MC Tier 2: White-ra, Naniwa, Inca Tier 3: HuK, Kiwikaki, Hasuobs (Add most korean protoss) Tier 4: Axslav After these come all other protoss. It's obviously possible that Cruncher takes a game off nani, it's pretty obvious 0% chance is a bit overzealous, but it's just an exaggeration complementing how strong I feel naniwa is at the moment. Don't take everything so literal, after all, cruncher did knock out Inca 2-0 in FXOpenis, and Inca is considered almost a PvP god. I still believe, from seeing cruncher's and naniwa's play, that cruncher's PvP looks normal and naniwa's looks exceptional. In my opinion anyways. Completely off topic - abbreviating FXOpen Invitational Series to FXOPenis is incredibly hilarious I strongly disagree with your ranking of PvP players - to put HuK, Kiwi and Hasu on the same level as "most Korean Protoss" to me is a bit strange. HuK has always struggled with PvP, and players like San have showed they can take on players like White-Ra. Axslav's PvP in the NASL against Squirtle also shows he has some impressive ability, more so than HuK (just my opinion.) The point is trying to rank PvP players beyond the top 3 is impossible because of the volatility of PvP. Like you said Inca is commonly known as the best PvP in Korea, yet he gets 2-0d by Cruncher? There is definitely a hierarchy of skill but i believe it can only extend to maybe the top 3 | ||
|
Pwere
Canada1556 Posts
On April 18 2011 06:51 Fungal Growth wrote: The zealots are only there to block the ultras, while the stalkers deal the damage. Ultras deal terrible damage to zealots, and cannot go around them. Try it out however you want, ultras get easily destroyed by anything other than a pure sentry/stalker/colossus ball outside of a choke. Maybe on paper it looks ok, but in a real match, it's sad. They seem to have some potential with banelings, but I don't know enough about these style to comment.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. On April 18 2011 06:42 Pwere wrote: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. Hydras are only good at defending a push. They can hold their ground vs blink stalkers, and that's it. You cannot chase them no matter how bad you win the fight, you cannot catch up to them, and they can blink kite you all the way while you try to attack. Then there is the guardian shield and zealot wall. Or coloxen. Or storms.People seem to think that hydras are great vs gateway units, or even counter them.. but that is not the case. Just like burrow roaches, they can hold a push, and even have a timing window for drops/crawler push. But lategame, they are bad. They slow down your army too much and prevent you from choosing where you fight. Plus, they upgrade badly (12+1) and scale badly (it's hard to have a good position with a lot of them). Simply put, they are not the solution to blink stalkers, and even if somehow they were, they can actually be countered hard enough that having too many of them costs you the game. Then there's also the fact that zergs have to be really, really aggressive vs toss these days. I really don't see hydras being part of a winning style against protoss outside of the very specific mid-game drop aggression. | ||
|
diverzee
Sweden992 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:13 oZii wrote: Cause your terran doesn't help a post like that at all. Just means your not really familiar with either of the races involved outside of what you see and how you play against P and how you play against Z. Which doesn't deal with PvZ. So I am terran BTW doesnt really help the discussion. Or it is saying that he is not making this observation based on bias, but rather on information gained from his perception. The majority of disappointment displayed in this thread comes from zerg players who actually themselves have had to play the matchup from the zerg side, but sGDaevil's post is different in that it is saying "I never play the matchup myself, but observation alone gives a strong indication of how very favoured protoss is in PvZ". | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:13 VoirDire wrote: I disagree, actually. In the lategame, stalkers are what vultures were in sc1 T-mech style. They are mobile buffer units, meant for map control/harass/dealing with drops etc, and from preventing the real muscle (void/colossus) from getting picked of. Most zerg units are pretty cost effective against stalkers. The only time in lategame when you'd want to focus on your stalker-army is if the Z has overproduced corrupters. This really isn't the right way to look at it, and I think if Zergs are looking at it this way then that is one reason they are losing. In BW TvP, you couldn't win the game if your tanks died, and the entire game was about retaining high tank count. Vultures were throw away units in this respect, though in some cases you can harass your opponent to death with them. In SC 2, however, it's the opposite. You make Colossi EXPECTING them to die, and your hope is that they'll force the Zerg to produce enough Corruptors that your Stalkers can mop up the Zerg army after your Colossi are dead. This is actually the insight that allowed Protoss players to go from losing a huge number of PvZs to winning almost all of them - not over-building Colossi. Most pro Protoss players get by with just 2-4 Colossi at most. The bulk of the army is stalkers. PvZ today really isn't about protecting your Colossi until you have a critical mass of them. It's more about protecting your Stalkers until you have a critical mass of them. Blink Stalkers are actually cost efficient vs. most Zerg units but that's not really the point. The point is that a few specialized Protoss support units can make your army VERY cost efficient as long as you have a lot of stalkers. The basis of the PvZ army in SC 2 is really stalker + support. You don't need to make a lot of support units. You just need a few. For this reason losing all your support units isn't that devastating, but losing all your stalkers is. By contrast, in BW if you lost all your vultures your tank army is still powerful enough to stand on its own until you rebuild those vultures. In SC 2 if you lose all your stalkers it's basically game over if the opponent has anything resembling an economy/army left since they can just stream units to your base until you crumble. Stalker retention is a key concept of PvZ, in a way reminiscent though not exactly the same as tank retention in BW TvP. | ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
| ||
|
Authweight
United States304 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:24 Azarkon wrote: This really isn't the right way to look at it, and I think if Zergs are looking at it this way then that is one reason they are losing. In BW TvP, you couldn't win the game if your tanks died, and the entire game was about retaining high tank count. Vultures were throw away units in this respect, though in some cases you can harass your opponent to death with them. In SC 2, however, it's the opposite. You make Colossi EXPECTING them to die, and your hope is that they'll force the Zerg to produce enough Corruptors that your Stalkers can mop up the Zerg army after your Colossi are dead. This is actually the insight that allowed Protoss players to go from losing a huge number of PvZs to winning almost all of them - not over-building Colossi. Most pro Protoss players get by with just 2-4 Colossi at most. The bulk of the army is stalkers. PvZ today really isn't about protecting your Colossi until you have a critical mass of them. It's more about protecting your Stalkers until you have a critical mass of them. Blink Stalkers are actually cost efficient vs. most Zerg units but that's not really the point. The point is that a few specialized Protoss support units can make your army VERY cost efficient as long as you have a lot of stalkers. The basis of the Protoss army in SC 2 is really stalker + support. You don't need to make a lot of support units. You just need a few. For this reason losing all your support units isn't that important, but losing all your stalkers is. By contrast, in BW if you lost all your vultures your tank army is still powerful enough to stand on its own until you rebuild those vultures. In SC 2 if you lose all your stalkers it's basically game over if the opponent has anything resembling an economy/army left since they can just stream units to your base until you crumble. Stalker retention is a key concept of PvZ, in a way reminiscent though not exactly the same as tank retention in BW TvP. Wow, this is really insightful actually, I hadn't seen it like that before | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:24 Azarkon wrote: This really isn't the right way to look at it, and I think if Zergs are looking at it this way then that is one reason they are losing. In BW TvP, you couldn't win the game if your tanks died, and the entire game was about retaining high tank count. Vultures were throw away units in this respect, though in some cases you can harass your opponent to death with them. In SC 2, however, it's the opposite. You make Colossi EXPECTING them to die, and your hope is that they'll force the Zerg to produce enough Corruptors that your Stalkers can mop up the Zerg army after your Colossi are dead. This is actually the insight that allowed Protoss players to go from losing a huge number of PvZs to winning almost all of them - not over-building Colossi. Most pro Protoss players get by with just 2-4 Colossi at most. The bulk of the army is stalkers. PvZ today really isn't about protecting your Colossi until you have a critical mass of them. It's more about protecting your Stalkers until you have a critical mass of them. Blink Stalkers are actually cost efficient vs. most Zerg units but that's not really the point. The point is that a few specialized Protoss support units can make your army VERY cost efficient as long as you have a lot of stalkers. The basis of the Protoss army in SC 2 is really stalker + support. You don't need to make a lot of support units. You just need a few. For this reason losing all your support units isn't that important, but losing all your stalkers is. By contrast, in BW if you lost all your vultures your tank army is still powerful enough to stand on its own until you rebuild those vultures. In SC 2 if you lose all your stalkers it's basically game over if the opponent has anything resembling an economy/army left since they can just stream units to your base until you crumble. Stalker retention is a key concept of PvZ, in a way reminiscent though not exactly the same as tank retention in BW TvP. Really well said stuff. It doesn't seem like anything that's going to suddenly change the whole match-up, but it's still a good way to look at it. | ||
|
Pwere
Canada1556 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:24 Azarkon wrote: This really isn't the right way to look at it, and I think if Zergs are looking at it this way then that is one reason they are losing. In BW TvP, you couldn't win the game if your tanks died, and the entire game was about retaining high tank count. Vultures were throw away units in this respect, though in some cases you can harass your opponent to death with them. In SC 2, however, it's the opposite. You make Colossi EXPECTING them to die, and your hope is that they'll force the Zerg to produce enough Corruptors that your Stalkers can mop up the Zerg army after your Colossi are dead. This is actually the insight that allowed Protoss players to go from losing a huge number of PvZs to winning almost all of them - not over-building Colossi. Most pro Protoss players get by with just 2-4 Colossi at most. The bulk of the army is stalkers. PvZ today really isn't about protecting your Colossi until you have a critical mass of them. It's more about protecting your Stalkers until you have a critical mass of them. Blink Stalkers are actually cost efficient vs. most Zerg units but that's not really the point. The point is that a few specialized Protoss support units can make your army VERY cost efficient as long as you have a lot of stalkers. The basis of the Protoss army in SC 2 is really stalker + support. You don't need to make a lot of support units. You just need a few. For this reason losing all your support units isn't that important, but losing all your stalkers is. By contrast, in BW if you lost all your vultures your tank army is still powerful enough to stand on its own until you rebuild those vultures. In SC 2 if you lose all your stalkers it's basically game over if the opponent has anything resembling an economy/army left since they can just stream units to your base until you crumble. Stalker retention is a key concept of PvZ, in a way reminiscent though not exactly the same as tank retention in BW TvP. | ||
|
Ezekyle
Australia607 Posts
On April 18 2011 06:59 sickoota wrote: You don't play protoss do you... PvP is so volatile anyone can win at any time. You don't watch MC play do you... Truly skilled players win PvP every game. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
