Please stop the tournament comparison discussion. Especially regarding players their runs (Stephano seems to be the current topic). Stay on topic and stick to the games. Consequences will be met out to further derailment.
On November 25 2011 23:40 Killcani wrote: ultra? why......
that's why - they are kinda good vs thors
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
and even vs ghosts someone did maths a while ago to show that the amount of snipes needed to kill ultras makes even mass-ghosts not really a "hard" counter
Thanks god people can do the math to explain us what seems to be wrong if you consider all the games. I wonder what math did he do, seriously, such troll is funny. 10 Ghost kill 5 ultra in an instant - an instant. That's a hard counter.
Such a dumb statement to make. When do you ever see Ghost vs Ultraliks battles with no other units involved. Ultras are useful in a variety of situation but you have to make the decision correctly. If your opponent has a lot of techlab baracks and already has ghosts and marauders ready on equal upgrades then yes it is totally useless going for Ultras on the other hand if you are ahead on upgrades against a bio tank force and your economy allows to get out a good amount of Ultras you can demolish that composition with ease. Would you say that Ultras hard counter marine tank, though?
On November 25 2011 23:40 Killcani wrote: ultra? why......
that's why - they are kinda good vs thors
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
because ultras are not comeback units but tank units, they are made to tank dmg not exatctly to deal demage quite opposite to broodlords and people mix up their role
Haypro's bust-out vs MVP with ultras says otherwise - imo ultras are really undervalued, same as infestors were several months ago
On November 25 2011 23:49 WhiteDog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:46 sleepingdog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:45 Itsmedudeman wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:43 bgx wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:42 SafeAsCheese wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:41 sleepingdog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:40 Killcani wrote: ultra? why......
that's why - they are kinda good vs thors
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
and even vs ghosts someone did maths a while ago to show that the amount of snipes needed to kill ultras makes even mass-ghosts not really a "hard" counter
Thanks god people can do the math to explain us what seems to be wrong if you consider all the games. I wonder what math did he do, seriously, such troll is funny. 10 Ghost kill 5 ultra in an instant - an instant. That's a hard counter.
and 10 mutas kill 5 marines in an instant; your logic is flawless, your understanding of the game groundbreaking; please tell me more about how the game works
The problem with Ultras has always been their size. 5 Ultras and 15 Ultras are about as similarly effective, unless you pull off a massive flank. Even in the final battle between Thorzain & Ret, the Lings actually did more damage than the Ultras, to the seige tanks. They allowed the flank to work. Ultras only work in combination is the big problem.
Well, broodlords are the basic definition of a fragile unit - they are slow as a motherf... and once the zerg starts losing a fight, all broodlords can be picked off by very few vikings. I don't know what exactly happened that started the shitstorm, but my basic point was, that both ultras and bls have their place in lategame. Both in ZvT, and in ZvP.
Currently everyone seems to think that ultras are awful, despite several progamers using them quite often. Which is just odd.
On November 25 2011 23:40 Killcani wrote: ultra? why......
that's why - they are kinda good vs thors
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
because ultras are not comeback units but tank units, they are made to tank dmg not exatctly to deal demage quite opposite to broodlords and people mix up their role
Haypro's bust-out vs MVP with ultras says otherwise - imo ultras are really undervalued, same as infestors were several months ago
On November 25 2011 23:49 WhiteDog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:46 sleepingdog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:45 Itsmedudeman wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:43 bgx wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:42 SafeAsCheese wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:41 sleepingdog wrote: [quote]
that's why - they are kinda good vs thors
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
and even vs ghosts someone did maths a while ago to show that the amount of snipes needed to kill ultras makes even mass-ghosts not really a "hard" counter
Thanks god people can do the math to explain us what seems to be wrong if you consider all the games. I wonder what math did he do, seriously, such troll is funny. 10 Ghost kill 5 ultra in an instant - an instant. That's a hard counter.
and 10 mutas kill 5 marines in an instant; your logic is flawless, your understanding of the game groundbreaking; please tell me more about how the game works
10 mutas = 1000/1000, 5 marines = 500/0
10 ghosts = 2000/1000, 5 ultras = 1500/1000
And the time it takes to get those ghosts to full energy? Ghosts being a suitable unit against ultras have much more to do with positioning and the map itself than unit vs. unit.
On November 25 2011 23:55 Exarl25 wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:45 Itsmedudeman wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:43 bgx wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:42 SafeAsCheese wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:41 sleepingdog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:40 Killcani wrote: ultra? why......
that's why - they are kinda good vs thors
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
It's because Destiny is often extremely vocal about it on his stream. People believe him over watching players like Stephano winning tournaments by using Ultras to great effect.
Basically. Stephano, DRG, Dimaga, and Curious all prefer ultras in the late game.
Check minute 29:20 - to see the power over ghosts vs broodlords. And yes i know nestea overproduced broods, was under constant attack by nukes etc. But just view this as an example of pure snipe dps.
Dude, wtf does this have anything to do with what I said? If anything it further proves my point. There's only a few maps that let you do this and that's Shakuras and Metalopolis. MVP had those ghosts building up energy for so long, and Nestea let the game get to that point because he couldn't win before MVP cut the map in half.
On November 25 2011 23:41 sleepingdog wrote: [quote]
that's why - they are kinda good vs thors
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
because ultras are not comeback units but tank units, they are made to tank dmg not exatctly to deal demage quite opposite to broodlords and people mix up their role
Haypro's bust-out vs MVP with ultras says otherwise - imo ultras are really undervalued, same as infestors were several months ago
On November 25 2011 23:49 WhiteDog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:46 sleepingdog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:45 Itsmedudeman wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:43 bgx wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:42 SafeAsCheese wrote: [quote]
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
and even vs ghosts someone did maths a while ago to show that the amount of snipes needed to kill ultras makes even mass-ghosts not really a "hard" counter
Thanks god people can do the math to explain us what seems to be wrong if you consider all the games. I wonder what math did he do, seriously, such troll is funny. 10 Ghost kill 5 ultra in an instant - an instant. That's a hard counter.
and 10 mutas kill 5 marines in an instant; your logic is flawless, your understanding of the game groundbreaking; please tell me more about how the game works
10 mutas = 1000/1000, 5 marines = 500/0
10 ghosts = 2000/1000, 5 ultras = 1500/1000
And the time it takes to get those ghosts to full energy? Ghosts being a suitable unit against ultras have much more to do with positioning and the map itself than unit vs. unit.
On November 25 2011 23:55 Exarl25 wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:45 Itsmedudeman wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:43 bgx wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:42 SafeAsCheese wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:41 sleepingdog wrote:
On November 25 2011 23:40 Killcani wrote: ultra? why......
that's why - they are kinda good vs thors
Banes are good against thors when you have 200 of them vs 10 thors, doesn't make it smart
If thorzain had 30 more supply, rets army would have melted.
not entirely correct ultras are v good vs middle sized mech army, and they are cost efficient while banelings are not cost efficient vs mech almost ever
Everyone always tries to argue that ultras are awful and you should never get them when several top pros end up using them quite often. Ultras are only really bad against marauders and like 15 ghosts.
It's because Destiny is often extremely vocal about it on his stream. People believe him over watching players like Stephano winning tournaments by using Ultras to great effect.
Basically. Stephano, DRG, Dimaga, and Curious all prefer ultras in the late game.
Check minute 29:20 - to see the power over ghosts vs broodlords. And yes i know nestea overproduced broods, was under constant attack by nukes etc. But just view this as an example of pure snipe dps.
Dude, wtf does this have anything to do with what I said? If anything it further proves my point. There's only a few maps that let you do this and that's Shakuras and Metalopolis. MVP had those ghosts building up energy for so long, and Nestea let the game get to that point because he couldn't win before MVP cut the map in half.
wow, relax, as i stated; i only used it as an example of snipe dps vs broods. Mentioned it because it was one of the most biggest army swipes of the year due to ghosts. But i'll tap out here, didn't know people would get angry due to an friendly example of 'snipe-dps'. Try to have fun watching DH.
EPT
