Translation by Kimoleon over on nanashin's stream.

Q - fbh vs hon_sin, yesterday we had the joy of interviewing players who hadn't a lot, hello honsin how are yo
hon_sin - feels gud

q - did you prepare stuff for interbiew?
hon_sin - no I didn't
q - why not
hon_sin - I'm not 100% confident in my skills yet

q - because you haven't shown much yet, but I think your record will get better if you do
hon_sin - if I get more broadcast games, I'll get better
q - then ask your coach to send more
hon_sin - it's been 3 years since I've been progamer, to the coaches and staff, I'll do better now please trust in me (aw)

opterown

Australia54784 Posts

June 04 2012 06:55 GMT

#92

On June 04 2012 15:47 N.geNuity wrote:

Show nested quote +

stats vs horang2 was better

PvProleague?

Failsafe

United States1298 Posts

June 04 2012 06:56 GMT

#93

I'd like to see this first TvT replayed with SC2 interface. Neither play was playing to their potential, definitely. But I think the game was so boring because TvT is a very mechanics-oriented game, and the map was huge. Not only that but the distance between player bases was huge, and even the distance between player expansions was huge.

I think TvT, even on such a big map, with great distance between expansions would be a very exciting spectacle if SCBW had crucial upgrades from SC2. That is, if SCBW had customizable hotkeys, automining, infinite unit selection, infinite structure selection, etc. aggressive play would be a lot more feasible. However, it's much easier to set up a tank line or a minefield than it is to attack one. So, in the absence of interface improvements it's natural that the game would devolve into a very long drawn out stalemate (neither player had the speed required to make aggressive movements effective, and so both players were forced to play passively).

Some would argue that Siege Mode and Spider Mines are the culprit (thus "TvT" is very passive). However, I think this boring, drawn-out stalemate wasn't the consequence of the nature of Terran. Rather, it was a combination of a multitude of factors, and my focus would not be on the Terran units, but rather on the absurd distance between expansions, the players (who both seemed quite downtrodden--and not given to playing a fast-paced aggressive game), and especially the unnecessary mechanical difficulties still present in SCBW.

The two major upgrades, in my mind, are automining and infinite building selection. Unless you've experienced SCBW at a high level, it's difficult to comprehend just how much of a balancing act is required to efficiently allocate actions between queuing new workers, sending workers to mine, and building new units, queuing each unit individually while panning the camera to the base and selecting individual factories. Just the necessity of panning the camera to create a production cycle or panning the camera to select individual workers and send them to mine makes an enormous difference. Let's say a player in SCBW spends 30% of their time and 50+% of their focus on panning the camera and constructing units, the same player in SC2 probably spends 10% of their time constructing units and 15% of their focus.

The mechanical advantages afforded by the interface alone are sufficient to change the game completely. Not to mention other absolute game-changing features in SC2 like smart casting. SCBW pros playing a modded SCBW that is modded with these interface upgrades would be playing an entirely different game, and playstyles would look nothing like they do today. Interface upgrades play a huge role in the strategic evolution of the game, and SC2's interface is part of the reason why the game seems to have been 'figured out' so much faster than SCBW

Veldril

Thailand1817 Posts

June 04 2012 06:57 GMT

#94

ZvP... Is it going to end with Hydra bust again

opterown

Australia54784 Posts

June 04 2012 06:58 GMT

#95

greedy o.O

KristofferAG

Norway25712 Posts

June 04 2012 07:00 GMT

#96

Any time a Zerg goes over 2 bases in this season of PL I'm happy. Means no 2base hydra bust.

Veldril

Thailand1817 Posts

June 04 2012 07:01 GMT

#97

On June 04 2012 16:00 KristofferAG wrote:
Any time a Zerg goes over 2 bases in this season of PL I'm happy. Means no 2base hydra bust.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they can't go 3-bases hydra bust

Caihead

Canada8550 Posts

June 04 2012 07:02 GMT

#98

On June 04 2012 15:56 Failsafe wrote:
I'd like to see this first TvT replayed with SC2 interface. Neither play was playing to their potential, definitely. But I think the game was so boring because TvT is a very mechanics-oriented game, and the map was huge. Not only that but the distance between player bases was huge, and even the distance between player expansions was huge.

I think TvT, even on such a big map, with great distance between expansions would be a very exciting spectacle if SCBW had crucial upgrades from SC2. That is, if SCBW had customizable hotkeys, automining, infinite unit selection, infinite structure selection, etc. aggressive play would be a lot more feasible. However, it's much easier to set up a tank line or a minefield than it is to attack one. So, in the absence of interface improvements it's natural that the game would devolve into a very long drawn out stalemate (neither player had the speed required to make aggressive movements effective, and so both players were forced to play passively).

Some would argue that Siege Mode and Spider Mines are the culprit (thus "TvT" is very passive). However, I think this boring, drawn-out stalemate wasn't the consequence of the nature of Terran. Rather, it was a combination of a multitude of factors, and my focus would not be on the Terran units, but rather on the absurd distance between expansions, the players (who both seemed quite downtrodden--and not given to playing a fast-paced aggressive game), and especially the unnecessary mechanical difficulties still present in SCBW.

The two major upgrades, in my mind, are automining and infinite building selection. Unless you've experienced SCBW at a high level, it's difficult to comprehend just how much of a balancing act is required to efficiently allocate actions between queuing new workers, sending workers to mine, and building new units, queuing each unit individually while panning the camera to the base and selecting individual factories. Just the necessity of panning the camera to create a production cycle or panning the camera to select individual workers and send them to mine makes an enormous difference. Let's say a player in SCBW spends 30% of their time and 50+% of their focus on panning the camera and constructing units, the same player in SC2 probably spends 10% of their time constructing units and 15% of their focus.

The mechanical advantages afforded by the interface alone are sufficient to change the game completely. Not to mention other absolute game-changing features in SC2 like smart casting. SCBW pros playing a modded SCBW that is modded with these interface upgrades would be playing an entirely different game, and playstyles would look nothing like they do today. Interface upgrades play a huge role in the strategic evolution of the game, and SC2's interface is part of the reason why the game seems to have been 'figured out' so much faster than SCBW

Part of why BW TvT is the match up it is is the slower pacing, you can't do half the things you can in BW TvT with the pacing of SC2, high level BW TvT is much more entertaining because there is the ability for players to recover from near fatal damage with strategic placement and skill in BW is something that hasn't been recipricated in SC2 at all.
See:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145526