|
I feel really bad for Inca lol, that last game only if he walled off complete then he'd game the game for sure lol. 1 small mistake like that cost you the game, that's how Protoss play lol, 1 miss FF, 1 miss wall.
|
I'm happy that InCa made it throught but seeing those DT cheeses in the first 2 games I fear he doesn't have the quality to stay in Code S for long.
|
|
|
inc IdrA vs Zenio rematch in Code S? :DD
|
Can't wait for the interviews yo!
|
Two of the worst players got through D:
|
On December 22 2011 04:59 Seeker wrote:who?
Song Jun Hyuk = ogs Inca
Amhuk Kisa = Dark Templar
|
On December 22 2011 06:35 Serpico wrote:
Two of the worst players got through D:
inca is angry about this post
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 22 2011 02:08 darkest44 wrote:
TL has become a cesspool of entitled little armchair critics who think everything should go the way they want OR ELSE. Match fixing accusations with nothing other than one guy lost (no shit, happens) and they were former teammates is retarded.
While i entirely agree that match fixing accusations are annoying and frustrating - the tone of your post makes me want to punch you through my computer screen
First off you guys don't even know shit about Inca or Zenio's personal relationships. For all you know Inca could be better friends with any one of those players than Zenio a former teammate (zenio doesn't even live in ogs house anymore dur), players aren't only friends with their teammates for fucks sake, they all live in the same city and hang out/play together all the time regardless of teams.
I don't see how you can start a sentence with "you don't know shit about Inca or Zenio's personal relationship" yet go on to suggest a possible scenario for their relationship
If that sort of stupid logic is enough to accuse people of match fixing literally almost every single group play now then what about all the other reasons you can come up with? What about just wanting weaker players to go through to maybe make his bracket easier in code s? Helping the guy who helped you prepare for a certain match, or gave him a piece of their lunch that day? We have to monitor every player 24/7 to make sure they have no interaction with each other that might make them like or favor one player over another one. /eyeroll/ I agree with you here  Koreans especially know the gravity of match fixing, look what happened to Coca. Koreans aren't retarded and they mostly care quite a bit more than non koreans about "showing good games" and "trying their best", they aren't going to "match fix" just cause they were former team mates with someone. As for Inca's play, Inca is not a very solid player he always relies on risky or cheesey builds that either win or fail miserably. How can you be surprised he messes up and loses vs Zenio, the guy is in code S because he DT cheesed out Polt ffs and almost even messed that up too. You need a lot more evidence then that if you're going to throw out stupid accusations.
Overall you are right, but the tone you are posting in makes me want to argue against you.
Inca in Code S blows my mind; especially with the players in his group. I am super happy for Zenio (TL fanboy) and i actually can't believe he made it through after his rough start. Bad luck to polt, but i guess everyone will have to prepare against DTs when they go against Inca.
|
well to be fair, Inca did a lot better in CodeA than a lot of foreigners such as Naniwa.
|
|
|
|
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:44 Zeroxk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 02:02 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 01:37 Hassybaby wrote:On December 22 2011 01:28 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 01:13 tree.hugger wrote:On December 22 2011 00:55 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 00:10 bennyaus wrote:
Inca is nowhere near as bad as people are making him out to be. It is Polt and Losira's fault they lost, not his fault that he won. He has shown a new level of play, both in the Korean Weekly, and in his previous Code A match, before this season, against DRG (I thought he played really well vs DRG back then). He is a capable player that may or may not get nerves on stage. No need to shit all over him. The system worked, he beat 2 ex-Code S players in Bo1 and finished 2nd in the Up and Down group, so he goes up to Code S. If you want to complain about a so-called bad player going to Code S, then talking to Losira and Polt and ask them how they lost to Inca, even though they know DT is his trademark, and there are standard timings for turrets/spores. If they are so much better than him, they can afford the slight loss of economy for 100% safety. Similarly, ask Losira how he lost to a 'worse' player in Zenio, despite gaining an advantage in the early game. Don't blame the player who won, blame the one you wanted to win, who lost, as it is his fault. See that's the entire problem with this system. That's not a problem, that's simply how the system works. It doesn't disadvantage good players any more than it disadvantages bad players. Everyone knows what the system is, everyone knows what they need to prepare for, and if you prepare poorly, you'll lose. Your argument isn't borne out by the reality of the games, Zenio beat LosirA and lost to Polt in longer games, he didn't cheese his way through, there's no evidence that LosirA would've suddenly been guaranteed to win the second two games if it were a Bo3. InCa prepared extremely well, do you think if it were a Bo3 he'd somehow be incapable of preparing builds on other maps? Just because the players you think should've advanced didn't don't mean the system is broken. Yesterday there was a group that went exactly as it should've, there wasn't really a single upset. Good players aren't the kind of players who can only win in long series, just as good players aren't the kind of players who can win in only short series. The fact is, good players should be able to win no matter what the circumstances of the tournament are. ...it amuses me with people type long paragraphs about issues I am not talking about, Sorry your one line response wasn't clear enough. He responded to the highlighted part, assumed you meant the problem is the Bo1 format. I do think the BO1 format is a problem, but it's not necessarily because the "better" player will fail to make it out of his group. That happens all the time in BO3, BO5, BO7, etc. because one player outplays the other one. However this format obscures who "deserves" Code S status because it promotes map-specific strategies and generally poor long-term play in combination. While the unorthodox plays have been well-executed for the most part, the macro games have been uniformly terrible with a few exceptions (e.g. Gumiho vs Ryung). I don't know why this is the case but it's happened far too often to be a mere coincidence. In short I think this format is far too loose in distinguishing Code S from Code A. On December 22 2011 01:38 DrakeFZX3 wrote:On December 22 2011 01:28 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 01:13 tree.hugger wrote:On December 22 2011 00:55 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 00:10 bennyaus wrote:
Inca is nowhere near as bad as people are making him out to be. It is Polt and Losira's fault they lost, not his fault that he won. He has shown a new level of play, both in the Korean Weekly, and in his previous Code A match, before this season, against DRG (I thought he played really well vs DRG back then). He is a capable player that may or may not get nerves on stage. No need to shit all over him. The system worked, he beat 2 ex-Code S players in Bo1 and finished 2nd in the Up and Down group, so he goes up to Code S. If you want to complain about a so-called bad player going to Code S, then talking to Losira and Polt and ask them how they lost to Inca, even though they know DT is his trademark, and there are standard timings for turrets/spores. If they are so much better than him, they can afford the slight loss of economy for 100% safety. Similarly, ask Losira how he lost to a 'worse' player in Zenio, despite gaining an advantage in the early game. Don't blame the player who won, blame the one you wanted to win, who lost, as it is his fault. See that's the entire problem with this system. That's not a problem, that's simply how the system works. It doesn't disadvantage good players any more than it disadvantages bad players. Everyone knows what the system is, everyone knows what they need to prepare for, and if you prepare poorly, you'll lose. Your argument isn't borne out by the reality of the games, Zenio beat LosirA and lost to Polt in longer games, he didn't cheese his way through, there's no evidence that LosirA would've suddenly been guaranteed to win the second two games if it were a Bo3. InCa prepared extremely well, do you think if it were a Bo3 he'd somehow be incapable of preparing builds on other maps? Just because the players you think should've advanced didn't don't mean the system is broken. Yesterday there was a group that went exactly as it should've, there wasn't really a single upset. Good players aren't the kind of players who can only win in long series, just as good players aren't the kind of players who can win in only short series. The fact is, good players should be able to win no matter what the circumstances of the tournament are. ...it amuses me with people type long paragraphs about issues I am not talking about, I find it funny rather than refute his argument, you type a single statement that explains nothing. His argument and my argument are completely different. Why should I bother refuting an argument that has nothing to do with my complaint? Maybe tree.hugger should ask me to clarify my position before trying to rip me apart. What are you talking about, map-specific strategies is a BIG factor in GSL. For example look at the MMA interview after he beat MVP, he had specifically prepared those all-ins on Bel'shir Beach and Shakuras Plateu, also look at any Ganzi game, he knows where to proxy on every map
Map-specific strategies are extremely important in an GSL individual series, as you will have enough time to analyze your opponent's habits to make strong builds against them. Ganzi's proxy rax against Lucky on Crossfire goes way beyond merely knowing good proxy positions; it was deliberately executed based on Lucky's overlord and drone scouting pattern on that particular map. Furthermore it's based on the idea that those habits are so deeply ingrained that they won't do something different to disrupt the strategy. If Lucky was sloppy with his drone control/overlord scouting he might have actually seen it.
However, map-specific strategies should not be used as a crutch to get wins because your basic play is not up to par. I wanted Inca to win but his absolute collapses in Game 3 and 4 have shaken my faith in this system to differentiate between Code A and Code S players. Players need to tailor their gameplay to a map but they also need to show that they can make good fundamental decision-making on a consistent basis, and Inca did not display that today. Code A and Code S should reflect some discernible level in skill instead of a "well we tied but I won over x and y so I deserve to advance" mentality.
|
inca and zenio? nice :D no polt, but whatever. I like zenio more than losira, and hurray for inca/protoss :D
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
I come back hours later, and I'm still pissed off about this. 1 terrible (inca) and 1 decidedly average (Zenio) player managed to get through, off the back of ridiculous games.
|
On December 22 2011 01:55 McFeser wrote:
Its really funny that Inca took out the two best vP for their race (Polt and Losira) but loses to Virus and Zenio.
Bomber has better vP than Polt and Coca has better vP than Losira.
|
In my first post i predicted Zenio and Polt to make it through.
I still can't believe InCa made it especially with that blunder vs Virus.
Then Polt and Losira don't blindly get detection against most the Notorious DT user I would love to know what was going through their minds after they lost to InCa DT's :p
|
On December 22 2011 05:29 Packawana wrote:g
That said, I hope Clide makes it out on Friday. That way we get to see a group of MC, Clide, Zenio and IdrA. :D
Yes, yes please! That'd be the best group in history of GSL
|
man i really wanted Polt to make it through... god damn it. My world us crushed!!!!!!!!!
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:27 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 02:02 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 01:37 Hassybaby wrote:On December 22 2011 01:28 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 01:13 tree.hugger wrote:On December 22 2011 00:55 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 00:10 bennyaus wrote:
Inca is nowhere near as bad as people are making him out to be. It is Polt and Losira's fault they lost, not his fault that he won. He has shown a new level of play, both in the Korean Weekly, and in his previous Code A match, before this season, against DRG (I thought he played really well vs DRG back then). He is a capable player that may or may not get nerves on stage. No need to shit all over him. The system worked, he beat 2 ex-Code S players in Bo1 and finished 2nd in the Up and Down group, so he goes up to Code S. If you want to complain about a so-called bad player going to Code S, then talking to Losira and Polt and ask them how they lost to Inca, even though they know DT is his trademark, and there are standard timings for turrets/spores. If they are so much better than him, they can afford the slight loss of economy for 100% safety. Similarly, ask Losira how he lost to a 'worse' player in Zenio, despite gaining an advantage in the early game. Don't blame the player who won, blame the one you wanted to win, who lost, as it is his fault. See that's the entire problem with this system. That's not a problem, that's simply how the system works. It doesn't disadvantage good players any more than it disadvantages bad players. Everyone knows what the system is, everyone knows what they need to prepare for, and if you prepare poorly, you'll lose. Your argument isn't borne out by the reality of the games, Zenio beat LosirA and lost to Polt in longer games, he didn't cheese his way through, there's no evidence that LosirA would've suddenly been guaranteed to win the second two games if it were a Bo3. InCa prepared extremely well, do you think if it were a Bo3 he'd somehow be incapable of preparing builds on other maps? Just because the players you think should've advanced didn't don't mean the system is broken. Yesterday there was a group that went exactly as it should've, there wasn't really a single upset. Good players aren't the kind of players who can only win in long series, just as good players aren't the kind of players who can win in only short series. The fact is, good players should be able to win no matter what the circumstances of the tournament are. ...it amuses me with people type long paragraphs about issues I am not talking about, Sorry your one line response wasn't clear enough. He responded to the highlighted part, assumed you meant the problem is the Bo1 format. I do think the BO1 format is a problem, but it's not necessarily because the "better" player will fail to make it out of his group. That happens all the time in BO3, BO5, BO7, etc. because one player outplays the other one. However this format obscures who "deserves" Code S status because it promotes map-specific strategies and generally poor long-term play in combination. While the unorthodox plays have been well-executed for the most part, the macro games have been uniformly terrible with a few exceptions (e.g. Gumiho vs Ryung). I don't know why this is the case but it's happened far too often to be a mere coincidence. In short I think this format is far too loose in distinguishing Code S from Code A. On December 22 2011 01:38 DrakeFZX3 wrote:On December 22 2011 01:28 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 01:13 tree.hugger wrote:On December 22 2011 00:55 CosmicSpiral wrote:On December 22 2011 00:10 bennyaus wrote:
Inca is nowhere near as bad as people are making him out to be. It is Polt and Losira's fault they lost, not his fault that he won. He has shown a new level of play, both in the Korean Weekly, and in his previous Code A match, before this season, against DRG (I thought he played really well vs DRG back then). He is a capable player that may or may not get nerves on stage. No need to shit all over him. The system worked, he beat 2 ex-Code S players in Bo1 and finished 2nd in the Up and Down group, so he goes up to Code S. If you want to complain about a so-called bad player going to Code S, then talking to Losira and Polt and ask them how they lost to Inca, even though they know DT is his trademark, and there are standard timings for turrets/spores. If they are so much better than him, they can afford the slight loss of economy for 100% safety. Similarly, ask Losira how he lost to a 'worse' player in Zenio, despite gaining an advantage in the early game. Don't blame the player who won, blame the one you wanted to win, who lost, as it is his fault. See that's the entire problem with this system. That's not a problem, that's simply how the system works. It doesn't disadvantage good players any more than it disadvantages bad players. Everyone knows what the system is, everyone knows what they need to prepare for, and if you prepare poorly, you'll lose. Your argument isn't borne out by the reality of the games, Zenio beat LosirA and lost to Polt in longer games, he didn't cheese his way through, there's no evidence that LosirA would've suddenly been guaranteed to win the second two games if it were a Bo3. InCa prepared extremely well, do you think if it were a Bo3 he'd somehow be incapable of preparing builds on other maps? Just because the players you think should've advanced didn't don't mean the system is broken. Yesterday there was a group that went exactly as it should've, there wasn't really a single upset. Good players aren't the kind of players who can only win in long series, just as good players aren't the kind of players who can win in only short series. The fact is, good players should be able to win no matter what the circumstances of the tournament are. ...it amuses me with people type long paragraphs about issues I am not talking about, I find it funny rather than refute his argument, you type a single statement that explains nothing. His argument and my argument are completely different. Why should I bother refuting an argument that has nothing to do with my complaint? Maybe tree.hugger should ask me to clarify my position before trying to rip me apart. If you want your argument to make sense, then go ahead and explain why you think preparing unique/creative/non-macro builds for each game in a series of games is so much more effective for series involving multiple opponents than it is for series involving one opponent. His argument (reasonably) assumes that preparing such builds for each game is equally effective whether facing the same opponent over and over or different opponents. As long as it's unpredictable, it makes no difference. There could be a problem in formats if Code S gave a random opponent and random map immediately before each match (generally favors standard play) while Up/Down gave that information far in advance (generally favors specifically prepared strategies). But that's not the case.
The main difference between preparing rush builds for a group and rush builds for a specific series is that using them for the latter usually involves some careful tailoring to your opponent's tendencies. For example, Ganzi's proxy barracks against Lucky on Crossfire was extremely risky but calculated to Lucky's entire scouting pattern, so it worked out as intended. Also rushes can be used to psychologically dominate a series against any opponent.
In a group stage with 4 to 5 people you will not have the time to watch every single opponent and do a build made just for them. Instead you will probably reserve those builds for the opponents you think you cannot beat in a macro game, and the outcome will boil down whether your opponent can properly anticipate your strategy. In this sense rush strategies are a lot more effective in BO1 groups than individual series. You can do a proxy DT rush and lose with the mindset that you really couldn't have won in a macro game, and you never have to face the player again (no future mindgames concerning more rushes).
Even then I'm not very concerned about "unique" strategies in a BO1 series being abusive. A lot of the rush strategies used over the last two days were very well executed and intelligent. It's entirely up to the players to decide how to play the games.
My main problem with the new GSL format (the group stage) is that it does not provide enough matches to properly distinguish the difference between a Code A and a Code S player. It seems to reduce Code A to a qualifier for Code S and meaningless as a title since the difference between qualifying and not qualifying can be razor-thin and entirely dependent on how the other members of the group play. It's this combined with the higher reward/lower risk payoff of a BO1 rush that creates a problem for this type of group play.
As a spectator I also find most of these games truly agonizing to watch but I can't tell how much the format affects their performance from game to game. It could just be severe choking in a pressure situation or unfamiliarity with how to mentally prepare for a BO1 format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
