|
On January 22 2013 22:06 prophetGMS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 21:59 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 21:58 prophetGMS wrote:On January 22 2013 21:53 X3GoldDot wrote:On January 22 2013 21:50 prophetGMS wrote:On January 22 2013 21:39 KadaverBB wrote:On January 22 2013 21:38 Berceno wrote:
after this game, I only can say that sc2 wol is a fail, its just stupid, and hots doesn't look like is gonna fix this really BAD designed game.... well Weird, how did you come to that conclusion after this fucking nailbiter of a game?^^ same for me because the all in was the perfect counter of Symbol BO but WTF this result is just incredible thanks to free units. It's maybe just a sad and pissed off moment but after the GomTvT and the zerg "imbalance" last year I can't find this game anymore exciting. And HOTS (for me) is also a disaster. SC2 just need some time to find a good balance, we are close to it but no, blizzard arrives with a complete new game. I'm going to cry in front of the last BW OSLs thanks Jangbi and crown prince to offer me this possibility. you will never like sc2 regardless of how good it is because you are living in the past, this is the truth and you cant deny it Maybe but I still enjoy sometimes SC2 but I had so high expectations on it, I'm just now a little bit sad. And as I said WoL started to find a balance with few problems mainly due to map but then HOTS is coming... I prefer a long wait to reach the perfection than just new stuffs to have a quick pleasure :-) Well, to be fair, the game you enjoyed, BW, took quite a long time to refine as well. Exactly I don't deny that fact. I took few year notably because of the innovation of BW to find the balance. But when this balance was reached BW was close to perfection for a long time. WoL had the possibility to do the same but HOTS is coming with a lot of new problems. We won't have a decent fair and balance game with HOTS before a long time. But you 're right things have to change but don't do it too fast. (I'm sure LoL is also a problem for Blizzard so they have to move quickly, but it's economics issues it never good for the quality of the game)
Well BW isnt a stand alone game, its the expansion to Starcraft... so the fact that HOTS is coming is historically a good thing, not a bad thing.
Sure it will be patchy at first, but it'll smooth out.
|
On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop.
Not necessarily, Zerg all ins are notoriously weak in fact. They usually depend on surprise entirely; generally if they're scouted they are rendered completely impotent.
|
On January 22 2013 22:39 Alpina wrote:No VODs for free? 
Only first match as usual or was it changed ?
|
On January 22 2013 22:45 sparklyresidue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop. Not necessarily, Zerg all ins are notoriously weak in fact. They usually depend on surprise entirely; generally if they're scouted they are rendered completely impotent.
That is key point. This all in wasn't scouted. And Zerg all in like roach bust, bane bust does well when unscouted. As well as muta ling bling bust in ZvT.
|
On January 22 2013 22:52 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:45 sparklyresidue wrote:On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop. Not necessarily, Zerg all ins are notoriously weak in fact. They usually depend on surprise entirely; generally if they're scouted they are rendered completely impotent. That is key point. This all in wasn't scouted. And Zerg all in like roach bust, bane bust does well when unscouted. As well as muta ling bling bust in ZvT.
Right, but it's a different dynamic if the Zerg is defending, right?
|
On January 22 2013 22:44 liberate71 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:06 prophetGMS wrote:On January 22 2013 21:59 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 21:58 prophetGMS wrote:On January 22 2013 21:53 X3GoldDot wrote:On January 22 2013 21:50 prophetGMS wrote:On January 22 2013 21:39 KadaverBB wrote:On January 22 2013 21:38 Berceno wrote:
after this game, I only can say that sc2 wol is a fail, its just stupid, and hots doesn't look like is gonna fix this really BAD designed game.... well Weird, how did you come to that conclusion after this fucking nailbiter of a game?^^ same for me because the all in was the perfect counter of Symbol BO but WTF this result is just incredible thanks to free units. It's maybe just a sad and pissed off moment but after the GomTvT and the zerg "imbalance" last year I can't find this game anymore exciting. And HOTS (for me) is also a disaster. SC2 just need some time to find a good balance, we are close to it but no, blizzard arrives with a complete new game. I'm going to cry in front of the last BW OSLs thanks Jangbi and crown prince to offer me this possibility. you will never like sc2 regardless of how good it is because you are living in the past, this is the truth and you cant deny it Maybe but I still enjoy sometimes SC2 but I had so high expectations on it, I'm just now a little bit sad. And as I said WoL started to find a balance with few problems mainly due to map but then HOTS is coming... I prefer a long wait to reach the perfection than just new stuffs to have a quick pleasure :-) Well, to be fair, the game you enjoyed, BW, took quite a long time to refine as well. Exactly I don't deny that fact. I took few year notably because of the innovation of BW to find the balance. But when this balance was reached BW was close to perfection for a long time. WoL had the possibility to do the same but HOTS is coming with a lot of new problems. We won't have a decent fair and balance game with HOTS before a long time. But you 're right things have to change but don't do it too fast. (I'm sure LoL is also a problem for Blizzard so they have to move quickly, but it's economics issues it never good for the quality of the game) Well BW isnt a stand alone game, its the expansion to Starcraft... so the fact that HOTS is coming is historically a good thing, not a bad thing. Sure it will be patchy at first, but it'll smooth out.
True but progaming started essentially with BW :-)
except for FAST MAP (competitions were on SC original)
|
On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop.
Not really. There was nothing particularly greedy about what Symbol did. Creator didn't do a standard all in. It was delayed, to fake an expansion. The delay allowed Symbol to have Infestor tech out in time, which counters the kind of all in Creator was trying to do.
The entire Protoss metagame is about playing greedy. What is FFE? Protoss builds nothing but static defense, 1 Sentry, 1 Zealot and 1 Stalker until 8 minutes into the game and spend all their money on economy and tech. They can do this, because they can hold everything by spending Sentry energy for extremely cost efficient trades.
In the game on Daybreak against Byul, Byul had a larger army, Creator took a 3rd with barely any units, but when Byul kept losing units because of Forcefields and lost the game, did anyone complain about imbalance in this thread? No, everyone said Byul played badly attacking into a position he shouldn't have. The unit composition he had was not good enough to break what Creator had, and casters were the big factor.
It was much closer in this game, but Symbol had casters out in time, which countered the allin . He barely defended.
|
On January 22 2013 22:54 sparklyresidue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:52 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:45 sparklyresidue wrote:On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop. Not necessarily, Zerg all ins are notoriously weak in fact. They usually depend on surprise entirely; generally if they're scouted they are rendered completely impotent. That is key point. This all in wasn't scouted. And Zerg all in like roach bust, bane bust does well when unscouted. As well as muta ling bling bust in ZvT. Right, but it's a different dynamic if the Zerg is defending, right?
Not sure what you mean by that to be honest.
|
Wouldn't surprise me if Parting and Squirtle are the only protoss advancing. Also wouldn't surprise me if only one of them advances (Or neither, but they have relatively easy groups both of them). :d Not expecting MC or Huk to make it out at all.
|
Sad to see Creator get knocked out. I wanted to see a Toss make it through.
Guess I shouldn't complain though, because at least Life made it.
|
On January 22 2013 22:58 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop. Not really. There was nothing particularly greedy about what Symbol did. Creator didn't do a standard all in. It was delayed, to fake an expansion. The delay allowed Symbol to have Infestor tech out in time, which counters the kind of all in Creator was trying to do. The entire Protoss metagame is about playing greedy. What is FFE? Protoss builds nothing but static defense, 1 Sentry, 1 Zealot and 1 Stalker until 8 minutes into the game and spend all their money on economy and tech. They can do this, because they can hold everything by spending Sentry energy for extremely cost efficient trades. In the game on Daybreak against Byul, Byul had a larger army, Creator took a 3rd with barely any units, but when Byul kept losing units because of Forcefields and lost the game, did anyone complain about imbalance in this thread? No, everyone said Byul played badly attacking into a position he shouldn't have. The unit composition he had was not good enough to break what Creator had, and casters were the big factor. It was much closer in this game, but Symbol had casters out in time, which countered the allin . He barely defended.
But the point is the flexibility of the Zerg. It is evident when you call Symbol's play not greedy. He was expanding to 4 bases, going to 85 drones, getting infestor tech on a very small army. If that is not greedy, I don't know what is.
As for FFE, that is countered by quick thirds by Zerg. That is why zergs complain about hard to take thirds, because if both sides play on 2 bases, FFE gives the toss a big advantage.
|
IS GOMTV.NET down or what?? i cant connect to it
|
United States97277 Posts
On January 22 2013 23:07 X3GoldDot wrote:
IS GOMTV.NET down or what?? i cant connect to it
It's working just fine for me
|
Nooo Creator whyyyyy
|
Will there be VODs of these matches via Twitch? Or free GomTV VODs?
|
That hype video is sweet! hahah I can't believe they used that for Keen! Perfect <3
|
On January 22 2013 22:58 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop. Not really. There was nothing particularly greedy about what Symbol did. Creator didn't do a standard all in. It was delayed, to fake an expansion. The delay allowed Symbol to have Infestor tech out in time, which counters the kind of all in Creator was trying to do. The entire Protoss metagame is about playing greedy. What is FFE? Protoss builds nothing but static defense, 1 Sentry, 1 Zealot and 1 Stalker until 8 minutes into the game and spend all their money on economy and tech. They can do this, because they can hold everything by spending Sentry energy for extremely cost efficient trades. In the game on Daybreak against Byul, Byul had a larger army, Creator took a 3rd with barely any units, but when Byul kept losing units because of Forcefields and lost the game, did anyone complain about imbalance in this thread? No, everyone said Byul played badly attacking into a position he shouldn't have. The unit composition he had was not good enough to break what Creator had, and casters were the big factor. It was much closer in this game, but Symbol had casters out in time, which countered the allin . He barely defended.
The problem is Protoss basically have an expiration timer in the game vs Zerg. And while sure ff are great early game and mid game they become worthless later.
|
On January 22 2013 23:07 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:58 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop. Not really. There was nothing particularly greedy about what Symbol did. Creator didn't do a standard all in. It was delayed, to fake an expansion. The delay allowed Symbol to have Infestor tech out in time, which counters the kind of all in Creator was trying to do. The entire Protoss metagame is about playing greedy. What is FFE? Protoss builds nothing but static defense, 1 Sentry, 1 Zealot and 1 Stalker until 8 minutes into the game and spend all their money on economy and tech. They can do this, because they can hold everything by spending Sentry energy for extremely cost efficient trades. In the game on Daybreak against Byul, Byul had a larger army, Creator took a 3rd with barely any units, but when Byul kept losing units because of Forcefields and lost the game, did anyone complain about imbalance in this thread? No, everyone said Byul played badly attacking into a position he shouldn't have. The unit composition he had was not good enough to break what Creator had, and casters were the big factor. It was much closer in this game, but Symbol had casters out in time, which countered the allin . He barely defended. But the point is the flexibility of the Zerg. It is evident when you call Symbol's play not greedy. He was expanding to 4 bases, going to 85 drones, getting infestor tech on a very small army. If that is not greedy, I don't know what is. As for FFE, that is countered by quick thirds by Zerg. That is why zergs complain about hard to take thirds, because if both sides play on 2 bases, FFE gives the toss a big advantage.
Actually, it's Protoss who complain about hard to take 3rds. Go read any thread discussing maps, half the posts are "how is Protoss supposed to take a 3rd, it's too hard for Protoss to take a 3rd". It's for that reason Protoss complained about Antiga, Abyssal City and Belshir Vestige. Now GSL added rocks to the new version of Belshir to tighten chokes to make the 3rds easier for Protoss to defend using minimal units and Forcefields.
|
On January 22 2013 23:16 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 23:07 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:58 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop. Not really. There was nothing particularly greedy about what Symbol did. Creator didn't do a standard all in. It was delayed, to fake an expansion. The delay allowed Symbol to have Infestor tech out in time, which counters the kind of all in Creator was trying to do. The entire Protoss metagame is about playing greedy. What is FFE? Protoss builds nothing but static defense, 1 Sentry, 1 Zealot and 1 Stalker until 8 minutes into the game and spend all their money on economy and tech. They can do this, because they can hold everything by spending Sentry energy for extremely cost efficient trades. In the game on Daybreak against Byul, Byul had a larger army, Creator took a 3rd with barely any units, but when Byul kept losing units because of Forcefields and lost the game, did anyone complain about imbalance in this thread? No, everyone said Byul played badly attacking into a position he shouldn't have. The unit composition he had was not good enough to break what Creator had, and casters were the big factor. It was much closer in this game, but Symbol had casters out in time, which countered the allin . He barely defended. But the point is the flexibility of the Zerg. It is evident when you call Symbol's play not greedy. He was expanding to 4 bases, going to 85 drones, getting infestor tech on a very small army. If that is not greedy, I don't know what is. As for FFE, that is countered by quick thirds by Zerg. That is why zergs complain about hard to take thirds, because if both sides play on 2 bases, FFE gives the toss a big advantage. Actually, it's Protoss who complain about hard to take 3rds. Go read any thread discussing maps, half the posts are "how is Protoss supposed to take a 3rd, it's too hard for Protoss to take a 3rd". It's for that reason Protoss complained about Antiga, Abyssal City and Belshir Vestige. Now GSL added rocks to the new version of Belshir to tighten chokes to make the 3rds easier for Protoss to defend using minimal units and Forcefields.
No. I mean REALLY hard to take 3rds. These thirds you mentioned a hard to take because of multiple attack path and ramp widths. Which doesn't affect zergs. What I mean by hard to take for zergs is thirds that are in the middle of the map or really far from Mai and natural. Ones that you cannot get creep to.
|
On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 23:16 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:07 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:58 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:42 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:33 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 22:25 oGsTrueSmug wrote:
Terran and Protoss play greedy and rush tech and econ instead of safety, and it's just what they deserved and they should have played safer.
Zerg drones to 85, rushes up to infestors, and not only is it somehow totally legitimate, but they get to actually hold out because they can trade energy (fungals, ITs) for economy (actual units).
Kinda depressing to say the least. So when Protoss forcefields to trade with insane unit efficiency, or uses Storms to kill a ton of units for energy, does that make you depressed as well? I think he was more referring to the fact that zergs can hold an all-in even after extremely greedy play. Where as if the reverse happened, the Zerg all in would be impossible to stop. Not really. There was nothing particularly greedy about what Symbol did. Creator didn't do a standard all in. It was delayed, to fake an expansion. The delay allowed Symbol to have Infestor tech out in time, which counters the kind of all in Creator was trying to do. The entire Protoss metagame is about playing greedy. What is FFE? Protoss builds nothing but static defense, 1 Sentry, 1 Zealot and 1 Stalker until 8 minutes into the game and spend all their money on economy and tech. They can do this, because they can hold everything by spending Sentry energy for extremely cost efficient trades. In the game on Daybreak against Byul, Byul had a larger army, Creator took a 3rd with barely any units, but when Byul kept losing units because of Forcefields and lost the game, did anyone complain about imbalance in this thread? No, everyone said Byul played badly attacking into a position he shouldn't have. The unit composition he had was not good enough to break what Creator had, and casters were the big factor. It was much closer in this game, but Symbol had casters out in time, which countered the allin . He barely defended. But the point is the flexibility of the Zerg. It is evident when you call Symbol's play not greedy. He was expanding to 4 bases, going to 85 drones, getting infestor tech on a very small army. If that is not greedy, I don't know what is. As for FFE, that is countered by quick thirds by Zerg. That is why zergs complain about hard to take thirds, because if both sides play on 2 bases, FFE gives the toss a big advantage. Actually, it's Protoss who complain about hard to take 3rds. Go read any thread discussing maps, half the posts are "how is Protoss supposed to take a 3rd, it's too hard for Protoss to take a 3rd". It's for that reason Protoss complained about Antiga, Abyssal City and Belshir Vestige. Now GSL added rocks to the new version of Belshir to tighten chokes to make the 3rds easier for Protoss to defend using minimal units and Forcefields. No. I mean REALLY hard to take 3rds. These thirds you mentioned a hard to take because of multiple attack path and ramp widths. Which doesn't affect zergs. What I mean by hard to take for zergs is thirds that are in the middle of the map or really far from Mai and natural. Ones that you cannot get creep to.
So maps without "natural" thirds. Basically jungle basin or blocked TDA, blistering sands and shattered temple. You mean those?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
