|
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.
OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech.
Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting.
|
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.
no, the point is that your whining about zerg in almost every of your posts
|
On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting.
Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening).
And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy.
|
crap any fix, i cant connect to gomtv for some reason
|
On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy.
He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things.
There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game.
|
Canada16217 Posts
Creeator vs Symbol game 3 was amazing.
GSL is awesome.
|
On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game.
You keep saying the build was not extremely greedy. It was one of the most optimal Econ/tech builds for zergs. Quick 4th, mass drones, tech all at the same time.
Yes, it was obvious that the all-in failed because the infestors are out. I think it is ok that the infestors can defend that all in. But the issue is more that the Zerg can go to 85 drones AND get infestors out in time that is the problem. If Symbol was on 70-75 drones and defended, it is fine.
If I use your banelings bust example. It would be like if terrans can go quick 3 CC, make some early hellions and then still have tanks in time to defend roach/bane busts. It makes 3CC too safe.
|
On January 22 2013 23:42 Tsubbi 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. no, the point is that your whining about zerg in almost every of your posts
Great argument....
|
1 down 4 to go 
|
On January 23 2013 00:52 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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:
[quote]
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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game. You keep saying the build was not extremely greedy. It was one of the most optimal Econ/tech builds for zergs. Quick 4th, mass drones, tech all at the same time. Yes, it was obvious that the all-in failed because the infestors are out. I think it is ok that the infestors can defend that all in. But the issue is more that the Zerg can go to 85 drones AND get infestors out in time that is the problem. If Symbol was on 70-75 drones and defended, it is fine. If I use your banelings bust example. It would be like if terrans can go quick 3 CC, make some early hellions and then still have tanks in time to defend roach/bane busts. It makes 3CC too safe.
There is no issue here. Getting more Drones is not a detriment to getting tech, more workers means more income means faster tech, that's how this game works, for all races.
I watched the game again, and to be honest, if Symbol hadn't been so "greedy", and started building units sooner, he would have probably died to that all in. He barely got Infestors out, if he had built units earlier, he wouldn't have been able to. Without Infestors, even with twice the army supply, he would have died to the Immoral/Sentry/Blink Stalker composition. And it's not like he didn't have any army, yes he had 85 Drones, but he also was 40 supply ahead of Creator, so he still had more army supply, just lower quality until his Infestors came out.
|
On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game.
The point a lot of people are trying to make, which I agree with completely is: what constitutes as a greedy build from zerg? If droning up to 90, while straight teching to your most cost-efficient lategame unit, does not count as greedy, then tell me what does? This is the complaint, that there is no longer a "greedy build" from zerg. I'm perfectly fine with the three races being different, but part of the game needs to be the decision between getting tech, getting army to defend, or getting economy. If zerg is allowed to get both economy and tech, while not needing to get an army to defend, then there is no risk in the decision of the zerg.
|
On January 23 2013 01:14 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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:
[quote]
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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game. The point a lot of people are trying to make, which I agree with completely is: what constitutes as a greedy build from zerg? If droning up to 90, while straight teching to your most cost-efficient lategame unit, does not count as greedy, then tell me what does? This is the complaint, that there is no longer a "greedy build" from zerg. I'm perfectly fine with the three races being different, but part of the game needs to be the decision between getting tech, getting army to defend, or getting economy. If zerg is allowed to get both economy and tech, while not needing to get an army to defend, then there is no risk in the decision of the zerg.
How is there no way to attack the Zerg? Creator won 3 maps today against Zerg, lost 2 games in very very close holds, which could have gone the other way.
Should there be no meaning of timings in this game? You should be able to attack at any time and win, even if you missed your timing? Had Creator hit Symbol in the window before he benefited from all the resources he invested into Infestor tech, he would have won. He missed his timing, he hit seconds before Infestors came out, which countered his build.
It means his build was not optimized. Maybe he counted on Symbol making more units, thus having less gas and later Infestor tech, for this push to work. Maybe that's how his training partners responded, so it worked on them. That means he got outplayed, or out-lucked. If he didn't want to leave it to chance, he should have found another way to force more units out of Symbol before he all-ined, or optimized his push to hit before it did.
|
On January 23 2013 01:14 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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:
[quote]
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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game. The point a lot of people are trying to make, which I agree with completely is: what constitutes as a greedy build from zerg? If droning up to 90, while straight teching to your most cost-efficient lategame unit, does not count as greedy, then tell me what does? This is the complaint, that there is no longer a "greedy build" from zerg. I'm perfectly fine with the three races being different, but part of the game needs to be the decision between getting tech, getting army to defend, or getting economy. If zerg is allowed to get both economy and tech, while not needing to get an army to defend, then there is no risk in the decision of the zerg.
I think it was greedy considering the circumstances, given that the third base was cancelled by Creator. However, it's not as though Symbol followed through with his 4 base build, he altered it as the attack came in. It's depressing to me that the general tone of this thread is once again balance whine and not praising Symbol for his amazing play. Christ, what a bunch of babies. Get over it, Creator lost.
|
On January 23 2013 01:08 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 00:52 vthree wrote:On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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:
[quote]
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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game. You keep saying the build was not extremely greedy. It was one of the most optimal Econ/tech builds for zergs. Quick 4th, mass drones, tech all at the same time. Yes, it was obvious that the all-in failed because the infestors are out. I think it is ok that the infestors can defend that all in. But the issue is more that the Zerg can go to 85 drones AND get infestors out in time that is the problem. If Symbol was on 70-75 drones and defended, it is fine. If I use your banelings bust example. It would be like if terrans can go quick 3 CC, make some early hellions and then still have tanks in time to defend roach/bane busts. It makes 3CC too safe. There is no issue here. Getting more Drones is not a detriment to getting tech, more workers means more income means faster tech, that's how this game works, for all races. I watched the game again, and to be honest, if Symbol hadn't been so "greedy", and started building units sooner, he would have probably died to that all in. He barely got Infestors out, if he had built units earlier, he wouldn't have been able to. Without Infestors, even with twice the army supply, he would have died to the Immoral/Sentry/Blink Stalker composition. And it's not like he didn't have any army, yes he had 85 Drones, but he also was 40 supply ahead of Creator, so he still had more army supply, just lower quality until his Infestors came out.
Your second sentence only applies once the workers are gathering and have 'paid' for themselves. And in Symbol's case, many of his drones weren't at that point yet.
Otherwise, you could also say droning up and expanding is not detriment to your army either since you get more resources and production. So no, this isn't how the game works. At least not the way you describe without qualifying it.
|
Creator Well it sounds like I would have been frustrated if I stayed up anyway. Oh well.4 to go.
It is an interesting question now though; what is greedy for a zerg both as an opening and as play.
|
On January 23 2013 01:32 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 01:08 sitromit wrote:On January 23 2013 00:52 vthree wrote:On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 23:16 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:07 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 22:58 sitromit wrote:
[quote]
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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game. You keep saying the build was not extremely greedy. It was one of the most optimal Econ/tech builds for zergs. Quick 4th, mass drones, tech all at the same time. Yes, it was obvious that the all-in failed because the infestors are out. I think it is ok that the infestors can defend that all in. But the issue is more that the Zerg can go to 85 drones AND get infestors out in time that is the problem. If Symbol was on 70-75 drones and defended, it is fine. If I use your banelings bust example. It would be like if terrans can go quick 3 CC, make some early hellions and then still have tanks in time to defend roach/bane busts. It makes 3CC too safe. There is no issue here. Getting more Drones is not a detriment to getting tech, more workers means more income means faster tech, that's how this game works, for all races. I watched the game again, and to be honest, if Symbol hadn't been so "greedy", and started building units sooner, he would have probably died to that all in. He barely got Infestors out, if he had built units earlier, he wouldn't have been able to. Without Infestors, even with twice the army supply, he would have died to the Immoral/Sentry/Blink Stalker composition. And it's not like he didn't have any army, yes he had 85 Drones, but he also was 40 supply ahead of Creator, so he still had more army supply, just lower quality until his Infestors came out. Your second sentence only applies once the workers are gathering and have 'paid' for themselves. And in Symbol's case, many of his drones weren't at that point yet. Otherwise, you could also say droning up and expanding is not detriment to your army either since you get more resources and production. So no, this isn't how the game works. At least not the way you describe without qualifying it.
Symbol was on fully mining 3 bases for a very long time, while Creator was on 2. Creator missed his timing, he did an Immortal Sentry all in that hit way too late, had +2 and Blink Stalkers to compensate, but didn't have a Warp Prism. In return, Symbol had even more units than a Zerg typically does when Immortal Sentry hits at its normal timing, had Infestors coming out, had 1/1 finished and had Spine Crawlers in his natural. FFS give the guy some credit.
|
On January 23 2013 00:52 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote: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:
[quote]
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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game. You keep saying the build was not extremely greedy. It was one of the most optimal Econ/tech builds for zergs. Quick 4th, mass drones, tech all at the same time. Yes, it was obvious that the all-in failed because the infestors are out. I think it is ok that the infestors can defend that all in. But the issue is more that the Zerg can go to 85 drones AND get infestors out in time that is the problem. If Symbol was on 70-75 drones and defended, it is fine. If I use your banelings bust example. It would be like if terrans can go quick 3 CC, make some early hellions and then still have tanks in time to defend roach/bane busts. It makes 3CC too safe.
Symbol played greedy, and Creator had a REALLY sharp good timing to punish it. Creator would have won if he didn't go to the timebuyer naked 4th base of Symbol, he wasted precious seconds there that gave Symbol time to prepare, furthermore he clumped up his core units of the entire push (immortal/sentry) making them targets for fungal.
These two problems made his otherwise sure to win timing, an even game between the two and a ~10 min battle ensued, which Symbol was able to edge out barely.
If you whine about this loss, you don't know enough.
|
On January 23 2013 01:37 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 01:32 vthree wrote:On January 23 2013 01:08 sitromit wrote:On January 23 2013 00:52 vthree wrote:On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 23:16 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:07 vthree wrote:
[quote]
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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game. You keep saying the build was not extremely greedy. It was one of the most optimal Econ/tech builds for zergs. Quick 4th, mass drones, tech all at the same time. Yes, it was obvious that the all-in failed because the infestors are out. I think it is ok that the infestors can defend that all in. But the issue is more that the Zerg can go to 85 drones AND get infestors out in time that is the problem. If Symbol was on 70-75 drones and defended, it is fine. If I use your banelings bust example. It would be like if terrans can go quick 3 CC, make some early hellions and then still have tanks in time to defend roach/bane busts. It makes 3CC too safe. There is no issue here. Getting more Drones is not a detriment to getting tech, more workers means more income means faster tech, that's how this game works, for all races. I watched the game again, and to be honest, if Symbol hadn't been so "greedy", and started building units sooner, he would have probably died to that all in. He barely got Infestors out, if he had built units earlier, he wouldn't have been able to. Without Infestors, even with twice the army supply, he would have died to the Immoral/Sentry/Blink Stalker composition. And it's not like he didn't have any army, yes he had 85 Drones, but he also was 40 supply ahead of Creator, so he still had more army supply, just lower quality until his Infestors came out. Your second sentence only applies once the workers are gathering and have 'paid' for themselves. And in Symbol's case, many of his drones weren't at that point yet. Otherwise, you could also say droning up and expanding is not detriment to your army either since you get more resources and production. So no, this isn't how the game works. At least not the way you describe without qualifying it. Symbol was on fully mining 3 bases for a very long time, while Creator was on 2. Creator missed his timing, he did an Immortal Sentry all in that hit way too late, had +2 and Blink Stalkers to compensate, but didn't have a Warp Prism. In return, Symbol had even more units than a Zerg typically does when Immortal Sentry hits at its normal timing, had Infestors coming out, had 1/1 finished and had Spine Crawlers in his natural. FFS give the guy some credit.
I think he hit the timing he wanted, symbol had just taken a fourth base and droned it up. The ideal time to attack a zerg is always right after they drone up an expansion. Again, what constitutes as greedy play from zerg? I would say fully droning up a fourth base after straight teching to infestors, while not properly scouting should be very greedy play (yes, he scouted the nexus, but you see protoss/terran all of the time rechecking third bases from zerg to make sure they weren't canceled. It's what you should have to do to win at the highest level). Unfortunately, that isn't greedy play, which is what everyone is complaining about.
|
On January 23 2013 01:37 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 01:32 vthree wrote:On January 23 2013 01:08 sitromit wrote:On January 23 2013 00:52 vthree wrote:On January 23 2013 00:03 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:50 Mandalor wrote:On January 22 2013 23:39 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:29 vthree wrote:On January 22 2013 23:16 sitromit wrote:On January 22 2013 23:07 vthree wrote:
[quote]
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. OK, so what are you saying then? You say FFE is countered by quick 3rd by Zerg. Creator faked a 3rd, Symbol countered by taking a 4th. But then Creator all-ined, but he still had 2 base tech and economy behind the all-in, and it was delayed enough, that Symbol had better tech. Zerg can't pre-emptively build too many units. Waiting until the last moment to start building units to hold all-ins is how it works. Here Symbol overdroned, because he saw Creator taking a 3rd, and almost died because of it, but was barely able to hold, thanks to his tech advantage. It wasn't an easy hold, but he pulled it off. Have we never seen a Protoss hold a hatch-cancel Roach all in against FFE? I've seen it happen many times, it's what makes this game exciting. Yeah but that's the entire point. Symbol read Creator's play wrong and went for a 4th. So, despite being extremely greedy and going to 4 bases, with a ton of drones AND teching hard, he was able to beat Creator's 2 base allin. That shouldn't happen in any game, ever - unless the P fucks up badly in terms of micro (which I didn't see happening). And you just cannot compare a roach allin vs ffe with this. P is designed to have a very good defensive early game. And your example is especially bad because in this scenario, the ffe will not have paid for itself or just barely so that it's essentially 1 base vs 1 base economy. He did not play extremely greedy. He played standard. He got all-ined, very very narrowly held. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. All-ins should have an element of risk, they shouldn't be auto-wins. Symbol managed the situation perfectly, responded perfectly, did everything right. Creator could have done some things differently. He didn't target fire the Infestors. He didn't go up the ramp and kill stuff in the main. He got all his Sentries fungaled on the ramp and lost them, among other things. There are units in this game, that change the game when they come out, and make some all-ins much riskier and even impossible. When Protoss gets High Templars with Storm, Terran's chances of doing some kind of Bio push into a defensive Protoss diminishes severely, to the point of becoming completely unviable. When Terran gets out a couple of Tanks with siege mode, Baneling busts become a losing proposition, no matter how many more units Zerg has, compared to the Terran. Symbol had the tech out in time, Creator failed with his all in, tough luck. Maybe he should have tried playing a standard game. You keep saying the build was not extremely greedy. It was one of the most optimal Econ/tech builds for zergs. Quick 4th, mass drones, tech all at the same time. Yes, it was obvious that the all-in failed because the infestors are out. I think it is ok that the infestors can defend that all in. But the issue is more that the Zerg can go to 85 drones AND get infestors out in time that is the problem. If Symbol was on 70-75 drones and defended, it is fine. If I use your banelings bust example. It would be like if terrans can go quick 3 CC, make some early hellions and then still have tanks in time to defend roach/bane busts. It makes 3CC too safe. There is no issue here. Getting more Drones is not a detriment to getting tech, more workers means more income means faster tech, that's how this game works, for all races. I watched the game again, and to be honest, if Symbol hadn't been so "greedy", and started building units sooner, he would have probably died to that all in. He barely got Infestors out, if he had built units earlier, he wouldn't have been able to. Without Infestors, even with twice the army supply, he would have died to the Immoral/Sentry/Blink Stalker composition. And it's not like he didn't have any army, yes he had 85 Drones, but he also was 40 supply ahead of Creator, so he still had more army supply, just lower quality until his Infestors came out. Your second sentence only applies once the workers are gathering and have 'paid' for themselves. And in Symbol's case, many of his drones weren't at that point yet. Otherwise, you could also say droning up and expanding is not detriment to your army either since you get more resources and production. So no, this isn't how the game works. At least not the way you describe without qualifying it. Symbol was on fully mining 3 bases for a very long time, while Creator was on 2. Creator missed his timing, he did an Immortal Sentry all in that hit way too late, had +2 and Blink Stalkers to compensate, but didn't have a Warp Prism. In return, Symbol had even more units than a Zerg typically does when Immortal Sentry hits at its normal timing, had Infestors coming out, had 1/1 finished and had Spine Crawlers in his natural. FFS give the guy some credit.
He'll get credit depending on how many zergs and/or protoss make it to the Ro16.
I get the feeling if there weren't just 5 protoss there would be a lot less whining. But hey, maybe the remaining 4 will make it through and we can stop whining or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
