Since the cast starts later than today, it is likely we will only see some of the matches and the last groups. Since it was 3 sessions today. Likely we will have 3 groups playing at the same time so we will like see group 7-9.
cast is only one hour long on GOM site, not sure how long OGN is showing it for no idea what games we'll be seeing lol cos the day would have ended already by the schedule (that i just posted) lol...
Heh, judging by today, maybe tomorrows cast will start and then you see a game with 100 vs 60 supply... Then one players ggs and that is it...cast then finishes...
Will be interesting to see whether the players who made surprising runs in OSL qualifiers and WCS qualifiers can do well here to show they are not 1-hit wonders. Also some favorites who did not get through those, will they make it out this time? With so many tournaments going on, you really get to see which players can play well consistently.
On July 28 2012 11:05 OnFiRe888 wrote: it's about to start isn't it?
Yeah, in 5 hours and 40 minutes.
The games themselves should probably have started for group 1-3 if there aren't any delays. The broadcast won't start for a bit. Usually there will be updates at leveltory or people will check the player histories and that updates from there (which can be inaccurate due to remaking games and so forth).
Marineking Fighting! I know you had some trouble in WCS qualifiers but I believe you can do it this time! Don't fall to Slayers_Dark at least Leenock will be really hard to beat and I know he's beaten you the last time you faced, but historically you were one of the few terrans that had his number. Go Prime players!
On July 28 2012 11:39 Shellshock1122 wrote: Marineking Fighting! I know you had some trouble in WCS qualifiers but I believe you can do it this time! Don't fall to Slayers_Dark at least Leenock will be really hard to beat and I know he's beaten you the last time you faced, but historically you were one of the few terrans that had his number. Go Prime players!
On July 28 2012 12:42 TheAnarchy wrote: If there are 17 groups that makes 17 players plus 13 from kespa that makes 30. The 2 extra players would be seeded?
The 30 players play eachother (mixed Kespa and Non-Kespa) and 15 will move on + IMMVP
On July 28 2012 11:39 Shellshock1122 wrote: Marineking Fighting! I know you had some trouble in WCS qualifiers but I believe you can do it this time! Don't fall to Slayers_Dark at least Leenock will be really hard to beat and I know he's beaten you the last time you faced, but historically you were one of the few terrans that had his number. Go Prime players!
MKP's group is actually playing on Aug 1st.
lol well this is embarrassing. thought he was tonight :D
On July 28 2012 11:39 Shellshock1122 wrote: Marineking Fighting! I know you had some trouble in WCS qualifiers but I believe you can do it this time! Don't fall to Slayers_Dark at least Leenock will be really hard to beat and I know he's beaten you the last time you faced, but historically you were one of the few terrans that had his number. Go Prime players!
MKP's group is actually playing on Aug 1st.
lol well this is embarrassing. thought he was tonight :D
it's okay MKP's fans always cheer for him, no matter when he's playing~
On July 28 2012 13:28 Lorning wrote: Jjakji and PartinG qualify for the next round
Jjajki vs Action for. Ro16 parting vs snow for Ro16
Played tomorrow
snow's 2-0d flash and nestea, let's see how he does against parting haha
Yes, seems like the first 2 Kespa players drew the strongest matchup of the GSL players. Not enough games from Kespa players to determine what their best match up is.
Both for that and my new HD to hopefully arrive today so I can get back on a proper PC T_T
On July 28 2012 15:50 lichter wrote: Man, Heart is really changing my mind with his results lately (qualifies over Noblesse)
Yeah, Heart actually looks good in general. Gutted for Noblesse though, very talented kid but never quite seems to break through.
are you able to watch the GSTL finals without the new HD? or will it come in before?
Yeah I installed GOM player yesterday on this shitty laptop to watch the GSL finals.
Ooooh, Polt vs DRG for a group finals?
Not bad
i think that's the one that will be broadcast since no games have appeared on polt's profile since
I wonder how DRG's play looks. He managed to 2-0 Ace but as of late he hasnt really been on his top level. Even excluding MC 3-0 his GSL run was a little shaky at best. He made it through every series 2-1 and didn't really look dominant in any of them.
On July 28 2012 17:00 pdd wrote: When/where were the games played? Offline or online? Because doesn't that mean MC had to take the train back to play his games today?
On July 28 2012 17:00 pdd wrote: When/where were the games played? Offline or online? Because doesn't that mean MC had to take the train back to play his games today?
offline, and yeah, looks like it.
Yup, offline at e-star2012 in Seoul. All the IM players didn't do well either but they were underdogs in most of their matches anyways.
I feel like Zerg needs to go 6 queen opening on Ohana... The 10 roach opening DRG did might've caught polt offguard (which it did) but it's pretty easy to hold it off by massing bunkers..
On July 28 2012 17:52 FidoDido wrote: I feel like Zerg needs to go 6 queen opening on Ohana... The 10 roach opening DRG did might've caught polt offguard (which it did) but it's pretty easy to hold it off by massing bunkers..
I think it got DRG to the mid game fine. He was behind on upgrades and tech, but it set Polt behind on his own econ, had the chance to auto-win if Polt's marines weren't out on the map, and he got the creep spread out moderately well (about half map) before Polt could push out.
DRG lost it from misjudging the size of Polt's army when DRG was still on muta ling bling, and that snow balled out of his control.
On July 28 2012 17:52 FidoDido wrote: I feel like Zerg needs to go 6 queen opening on Ohana... The 10 roach opening DRG did might've caught polt offguard (which it did) but it's pretty easy to hold it off by massing bunkers..
Not really, Polt scouted it really early with marines. He was only able to deny a bit of mining but 10 roach opennings are so bad for you eco that he couldn't really stop Polt from denying creep which meant his ling/blings army had a lot of problems engaging Polt's marine tank (He basically needed to use his mutas with his main force to defend which is never good). He tried to come back with fast expand but Polt killed his bases just before DRG's macro could kick in.
On July 28 2012 18:12 brrip wrote: terrible month for DRG. I don't remember him winning a set since playing Naniwa
He beat Ace to get to the finals vs Polt and he beat San and Symbol (in Bo1) at OSL ODT. But granted, he is losing a lot as well (GSTL, and now vs Polt)
Not sure why he choose to do that roach (semi all-in).
On July 28 2012 18:16 Tsubbi wrote: almost no zerg qualifies for wcg so far, maps are entombed antiga and ohana though, also zerg heros slumping hard all of a sudden
Well, only DRG was really a favorite in his group and maybe Curious/LosirA in their group. Monster actually upset Squirtle to make it.
The 2nd GSL group has Leenock, Life, Symbol, Nestea, CoCa and YugiOh.
On July 28 2012 18:16 Tsubbi wrote: almost no zerg qualifies for wcg so far, maps are entombed antiga and ohana though, also zerg heros slumping hard all of a sudden
Yeah, maps have definitely been a factor. DRG has commented on the wcg maps many times.
On July 28 2012 18:16 Tsubbi wrote: almost no zerg qualifies for wcg so far, maps are entombed antiga and ohana though, also zerg heros slumping hard all of a sudden
Yeah, maps have definitely been a factor. DRG has commented on the wcg maps many times.
the three maps chosen are some of the more balanced maps though
On July 28 2012 18:16 Tsubbi wrote: almost no zerg qualifies for wcg so far, maps are entombed antiga and ohana though, also zerg heros slumping hard all of a sudden
Yeah, maps have definitely been a factor. DRG has commented on the wcg maps many times.
the three maps chosen are some of the more balanced maps though
Yeah, the maps are ok. Like I said, only DRG was a big favorite to make it through. And Curious/LosirA in their group. Most of the 'hot' zergs are playing in the second session.
On July 28 2012 18:16 Tsubbi wrote: almost no zerg qualifies for wcg so far, maps are entombed antiga and ohana though, also zerg heros slumping hard all of a sudden
Yeah, maps have definitely been a factor. DRG has commented on the wcg maps many times.
the three maps chosen are some of the more balanced maps though
Yeah, the maps are ok. Like I said, only DRG was a big favorite to make it through. And Curious/LosirA in their group. Most of the 'hot' zergs are playing in the second session.
DRG is just having a bad month. I hope he is can learn form this and use this as a learning experience the taste of defeat is so bitter. I feel he will be back soon. He just said he felt better just not fully back to normal .
Edit: Didn't Realize the maps that was the worst selections of maps.
On July 28 2012 18:16 Tsubbi wrote: almost no zerg qualifies for wcg so far, maps are entombed antiga and ohana though, also zerg heros slumping hard all of a sudden
Yeah, maps have definitely been a factor. DRG has commented on the wcg maps many times.
the three maps chosen are some of the more balanced maps though
Yeah, the maps are ok. Like I said, only DRG was a big favorite to make it through. And Curious/LosirA in their group. Most of the 'hot' zergs are playing in the second session.
On July 28 2012 18:16 Tsubbi wrote: almost no zerg qualifies for wcg so far, maps are entombed antiga and ohana though, also zerg heros slumping hard all of a sudden
Yeah, maps have definitely been a factor. DRG has commented on the wcg maps many times.
the three maps chosen are some of the more balanced maps though
Yeah, the maps are ok. Like I said, only DRG was a big favorite to make it through. And Curious/LosirA in their group. Most of the 'hot' zergs are playing in the second session.
They picked the most awful maps have you seen the spread. From Non-Kespa...4 Protoss, 4 Terran, and 1 Zerg...Then with Kespa it gets even better....11 Protoss, 7 Terran, and 4 Zerg...WCG picked the worse maps.
Very few zerg will make it out of this and even if they do will be Protoss vs Protoss for the finals. They have to play the same matches again....
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
Are those Pro vs Pro stats? Where are they from what tournaments? Entombed we know is Terran Favored. It isn't in the favor of Zerg. Plus this statistics could be not sued to the Queen Buff but now Terran has adjusted the map pool they picked is awful imo.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
Are those Pro vs Pro stats? Where are they from what tournaments? Entombed we know is Terran Favored. It isn't in the favor of Zerg. Plus this statistics could be not sued to the Queen Buff but now Terran has adjusted the map pool they picked is awful imo.
These are from TLPD Korea. (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/527_Entombed_Valley/games/TvZ) Not sure why you KNOW entombed is terran favor. Zergs are 9-1 in most recent 10 games v Terran (so your Queen Buff explanation doesn't work). And these aren't scrub terrans either, they include Polt, MKP, Taeja, Ryung...
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
Are those Pro vs Pro stats? Where are they from what tournaments? Entombed we know is Terran Favored. It isn't in the favor of Zerg. Plus this statistics could be not sued to the Queen Buff but now Terran has adjusted the map pool they picked is awful imo.
These are from TLPD Korea. (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/527_Entombed_Valley/games/TvZ) Not sure why you KNOW entombed is terran favor. Zergs are 9-1 in most recent 10 games v Terran (so your Queen Buff explanation doesn't work). And these aren't scrub terrans either, they include Polt, MKP, Taeja, Ryung...
Well just in the tournament only one Zerg came out of the 9 brackets...So there must of been a lot of zergs losing on all of those maps. The map pool was commented on at least one Zerg stated that those maps are not a very good choice. Was very unsure how far he would get on the maps that were chosen. Even still only 1 Zerg made it out and very few will make it out of the qualifiers.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
Are those Pro vs Pro stats? Where are they from what tournaments? Entombed we know is Terran Favored. It isn't in the favor of Zerg. Plus this statistics could be not sued to the Queen Buff but now Terran has adjusted the map pool they picked is awful imo.
These are from TLPD Korea. (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps/527_Entombed_Valley/games/TvZ) Not sure why you KNOW entombed is terran favor. Zergs are 9-1 in most recent 10 games v Terran (so your Queen Buff explanation doesn't work). And these aren't scrub terrans either, they include Polt, MKP, Taeja, Ryung...
Well just in the tournament only one Zerg came out of the 9 brackets...So there must of been a lot of zergs losing on all of those maps. The map pool was commented on at least one Zerg stated that those maps are not a very good choice. Was very unsure how far he would get on the maps that were chosen. Even still only 1 Zerg made it out and very few will make it out of the qualifiers.
And 9 brackets is a pretty limited sample size. Did you look at the zergs in the brackets? Only DRG was the favorite in his group and maybe Curious/LosirA from theirs.
And the finalists were 7T 6P 5Z...
Also, OSL used the same maps for the non Kespa side and qualifiers were 6Z, 2T, 4P (with only MVP, MC, Nestea, DRG not participating due to seed).
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
there's no point quoting statistics for these people.
once they make up their minds that maps are imbalanced for Z, nothing in the world you show will convince them otherwise, they just cherry pick every game that supports their opinion and ignores all else.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
there's no point quoting statistics for these people.
once they make up their minds that maps are imbalanced for Z, nothing in the world you show will convince them otherwise, they just cherry pick every game that supports their opinion and ignores all else.
True. Some zergs claim that Metropolis is balanced in TvZ...
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity". TvZ opinion on Antiga Shipyard fluctuated wildly over the past year as lategame strategies (for both sides) changed.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition when overall mechanical ability was very low. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters.
Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game.
Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters.
Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game.
Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point.
And when MVP dominated TvT, he was mainly meching. If it was so superior, why did terrans still go bio/ bio tank? It is not just easy as saying "Well, this map is good for mech so I will mech".
Look in MC. He dominated with his 2 base all-ins (he could play macro as well). But why weren't other protoss finding equal success with 2 base (although many protoss are getting better). MC's forcefields and micro were just BETTER and he made won with armies that other protoss' couldn't. Same with Stephano with max roaches.
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters.
Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game.
Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point.
And when MVP dominated TvT, he was mainly meching. If it was so superior, why did terrans still go bio/ bio tank? It is not just easy as saying "Well, this map is good for mech so I will mech".
They dropped it because of the BFH nerf, which was a foolish knee-jerk reaction that stagnated mech play for years. Today people say mech is ass because no one has found much success with it. But no one has found much success with it because no one will put in the effort to get good with it. Marine-tank and MMM are much easier to play.
On July 29 2012 03:33 vthree wrote:
Look in MC. He dominated with his 2 base all-ins (he could play macro as well). But why weren't other protoss finding equal success with 2 base (although many protoss are getting better). MC's forcefields and micro were just BETTER and he made won with armies that other protoss' couldn't. Same with Stephano with max roaches.
MC and Stephano introduced those strategies to the metagame, so obviously they were the first ones to reap the benefits. Now they don't have the same success because everyone else has adapted the same strategies and counter-strategies were developed. And why are you bringing MC up when his existence only proves my original point regarding mechanical ability?
On July 29 2012 02:22 vthree wrote: Let's look at the maps for Z
Antiga - TvZ (53.5%) ZvP (55.1%) - 1.4% advantage for Z
Entombed - TvZ (40.8%) ZvP (45.2%) - 4.4% advantage for Z
Ohana - TvZ (54.3%) ZvP (46.9%) - 7.4% disadvantage for Z
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters.
Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game.
Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point.
And when MVP dominated TvT, he was mainly meching. If it was so superior, why did terrans still go bio/ bio tank? It is not just easy as saying "Well, this map is good for mech so I will mech".
They dropped it because of the BFH nerf, which was a foolish knee-jerk reaction that stagnated mech play for years. Today people say mech is ass because no one has found much success with it. But no one has found much success with it because no one will put in the effort to get good with it. Marine-tank and MMM are much easier to play.
Look in MC. He dominated with his 2 base all-ins (he could play macro as well). But why weren't other protoss finding equal success with 2 base (although many protoss are getting better). MC's forcefields and micro were just BETTER and he made won with armies that other protoss' couldn't. Same with Stephano with max roaches.
MC and Stephano introduced those strategies to the metagame, so obviously they were the first ones to reap the benefits. Now they don't have the same success because everyone else has adapted the same strategies and counter-strategies were developed. And why are you bringing MC up when his existence only proves my original point regarding mechanical ability?
Have you seen MC's 2012 earnings? Yeah, other toss are doing 2 base and zergs are countering. But MC still has a lot of success. Actually, I am not sure what your arguement is at all.
I'm not sure if Ohana is bad for Z. I see some zerg players have consistent success while others just flop. I think zerg players just don't know how to play the map right.
You could argue that for every map though... Different maps will favor different players due to playstyle. Even in mirror matchups, certain players can like certain maps (mech vs bio, etc). So all we can really do is look at statistics.
I don't even mean ~50% success. A few Z players have a 75% winrate on that map over a lot of games. And since playstyles can be adapted for specific maps, I don't see how you can separate "imbalance" from "stupidity".
Not really. Different players have different skill sets (micro, positioning, macro, multi task etc). And different units comps might be better for them (i.e. MMA with bio or bio tank, you rarely see him going mech)
You greatly over-exaggerate the strengths of specific players at the highest level. This was only true during the first 16-18 months of competition. Just because MMA is uncomfortable with mech doesn't mean he can't play mech, but he is unwilling to put the appropriate time to master the playstyle.
Obviously, pro players are good enough to play many styles. But they still have strong suits. And when you are playing against the top players, the difference is so slight that every little thing matters.
Back in July 2011 Polt's strengths used to be his micro and positioning. Today it is micro, positioning, decision-making, and macro. Before his wrist problems Mvp was strong in every aspect of the game.
Your statement is true in light of all the upsets that regularly occur in the Korean scene, which only reinforces my point.
And when MVP dominated TvT, he was mainly meching. If it was so superior, why did terrans still go bio/ bio tank? It is not just easy as saying "Well, this map is good for mech so I will mech".
They dropped it because of the BFH nerf, which was a foolish knee-jerk reaction that stagnated mech play for years. Today people say mech is ass because no one has found much success with it. But no one has found much success with it because no one will put in the effort to get good with it. Marine-tank and MMM are much easier to play.
On July 29 2012 03:33 vthree wrote:
Look in MC. He dominated with his 2 base all-ins (he could play macro as well). But why weren't other protoss finding equal success with 2 base (although many protoss are getting better). MC's forcefields and micro were just BETTER and he made won with armies that other protoss' couldn't. Same with Stephano with max roaches.
MC and Stephano introduced those strategies to the metagame, so obviously they were the first ones to reap the benefits. Now they don't have the same success because everyone else has adapted the same strategies and counter-strategies were developed. And why are you bringing MC up when his existence only proves my original point regarding mechanical ability?
Have you seen MC's 2012 earnings? Yeah, other toss are doing 2 base and zergs are countering. But MC still has a lot of success. Actually, I am not sure what your arguement is at all.
Original argument went like this: - Maps are not imbalanced against races, only strategies. - Bringing up skill sets as an explanation is relevant but not justifiable since players can change their own skill sets over time. - Popular conception of certain players' skill sets is exaggerated as they only refer to the past. Today the average mechanical skill is so much higher than the days when MMA and MC became famous for certain skills. Everyone can macro/micro/multitask well. - The MC and Stephano examples are red herrings. Their success with certain strategies was based on introducing said strategies, so obviously they were the masters of said strategies for a long time.
MC still places highly in many events since he is a good all-around player now. Do not forget his horrendous PvZ slump during summer 2011 and why it occurred.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uonVh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3dBHR.png)
![[image loading]](http://i45.tinypic.com/2w49v2x.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qAv1a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dMAGF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wWTEU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7CQBv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lUYww.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oO4Xt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D9bdH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w7AfU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xYbrf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cbVOl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B95ez.jpg)
Monster v 
Genius
Trap v 
BaBy v 
Heart
