|
On March 06 2012 19:15 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 19:12 Benjamin80 wrote:On March 06 2012 19:11 RJGooner wrote:On March 06 2012 19:10 Reedy wrote:On March 06 2012 19:09 EleanorRIgby wrote:
he didn't have a big enough lead, re game for sure ....... How is a 25 supply lead and +3 vs +1 attack not a big enough lead? Oh and he was a base ahead..... 25 supply lead and an upgrade advantage is not a guaranteed win, especially in PvP. If it was like a 60 supply lead then maybe. Upgrades you know how much of a difference +3 do compared to + 1? How many times have we seen an engagement in PvP where the player who has higher supply or what looks like the better army loses because of bad positioning? Just face facts, the game wasn't over and done with.
Yeah.
However, the chances of MC winning were about 20% I would say.
|
Yeah! Well done Nerchio. If anything this group is good practice for your ZvP anyway 
|
United States97276 Posts
Liquipedia recording a game 3 loss for MC
|
|
|
On March 06 2012 19:14 alone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 19:13 Heavenly wrote:
Definitely not a clear win..MC most likely had a good bit more colossi, WhiteRa's mothership was no where near the battle when he appeared to be going ahead anyway, defender has the advantage in positioning and warping in, etc. Just saw a PvP in the Master's Cup where someone with better upgrades and more colossi and a third got completely stomped because he clumped his colossi, may have been Crank v Hasuobs. White ra had 3 or 4 colo and lance when mc's support bay was finishing.
Three at the most. WhiteRa also had more probes so the supply gap was closer, MC had closer reinforcements, arguable about the chargelot v blink stalker count, etc. The army tab looked almost completely even despite WhiteRa having the mothership in queue. WhiteRa definitely had the advantage but it could be thrown away in a second, what if he accidentally continues his single file, MC engages all at once, and suddenly WhiteRa loses 30 supply because of bad positioning?
Possible they'd award it to WhiteRa though, but meh
|
|
|
On March 06 2012 19:16 Shellshock1122 wrote:
Liquipedia recording a game 3 loss for MC
'
yeah, but that's not official
|
|
|
|
|
United States97276 Posts
Hahaha wow Grubby is about to get owned >.>
|
LOL and Grubby scouting wrong! Too many differents maps 
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, stop complaining about the regame, the game was not won at all. You don't win the game by gaining an advantage in starcraft, you win the game by killing your opponent, and MC was nowhere near dead. He had caught up on colossus count, and whitera's mothership was not going to affect a battle before going all across the map (giving time for MC to get his own), so really one bad engagement, and the advantage could have gone to MC
|
seems like we see a casting Grubby really early!
|
On March 06 2012 19:16 theBALLS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 19:15 RJGooner wrote:On March 06 2012 19:12 Benjamin80 wrote:On March 06 2012 19:11 RJGooner wrote:On March 06 2012 19:10 Reedy wrote:On March 06 2012 19:09 EleanorRIgby wrote:
he didn't have a big enough lead, re game for sure ....... How is a 25 supply lead and +3 vs +1 attack not a big enough lead? Oh and he was a base ahead..... 25 supply lead and an upgrade advantage is not a guaranteed win, especially in PvP. If it was like a 60 supply lead then maybe. Upgrades you know how much of a difference +3 do compared to + 1? How many times have we seen an engagement in PvP where the player who has higher supply or what looks like the better army loses because of bad positioning? Just face facts, the game wasn't over and done with. Yeah. However, the chances of MC winning were about 20% I would say.
Yea MC's chances looked pretty bleak there. Hopefully White-Ra takes game 3
|
this would have been so different if grubby had known it was cross only.
|
United States97276 Posts
short proxy gate game 2. Hasuobs wins 2-0. Hasu 2-0 (4-0) in the group
|
|
|
lol, Hasuobs and Socke laughing about that win :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
