|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On December 01 2013 04:12 75 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:10 Qwerty85 wrote:On December 01 2013 04:06 samurai80 wrote:On December 01 2013 04:03 Rinny wrote:On December 01 2013 03:52 Shikyo wrote:
How on earth does a bo3 benefit "a style"? Consider the following, there are two starcraft players X and Y, X is slightly better at starcraft and he wins 60% of the games he plays against Y leaving Y to win only 40% . It is entirely possible for Y to play a set number of games with X and win more than him, but if X and Y were to play a million games of starcraft the probability that Y would win more games than X is VERY close to 0 like .000000001% . However if they were to play a 3 games (as in a bo3) the probability that Y would win more games is like 32 percent. Most of the time playing cheesy doesn't result in a win rate of >50% in starcraft II (the exception being in the early days when tournaments were dominated by 1 base scv pulls) because as the game gets figured out and some of those strategies are patched out they lose their effectiveness. But even without a >50% winrate it's totally possible to beat superior opponents. TL;DR Lower amounts of games in a series mean it is more likely for inferior opponents to advance. Which benefits inferior players that is protoss. Is that what you mean ? More like it benefits the player with more opening options. Protoss have much more builds that just straight up kill you if caught by surprise. why is having more builds better in bo3 than ,lets say, bo7
I don't think there is good sound theory about how to play a bo7 perfectly. We'd have to ask Mvp.
|
|
|
|
|
Does twitch lag for you right now?
|
|
|
What did Life say? I didn't catch it.
|
On December 01 2013 04:16 Seiniyta wrote:
What did Life say? I didn't catch it.
Naniwa
|
On December 01 2013 03:46 Tobblish wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 03:45 JustPassingBy wrote:On December 01 2013 03:44 Keeemy wrote:
30min break D::: nuuuuu So, any suggestions what to do in this break? Apart from starting to drink because every damn player I have been cheering for loses!!! Do you like Dota2 or CS?
Ah sorry, saw this too late. I was playing some sc2. 
|
On December 01 2013 04:12 75 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:10 Qwerty85 wrote:On December 01 2013 04:06 samurai80 wrote:On December 01 2013 04:03 Rinny wrote:On December 01 2013 03:52 Shikyo wrote:
How on earth does a bo3 benefit "a style"? Consider the following, there are two starcraft players X and Y, X is slightly better at starcraft and he wins 60% of the games he plays against Y leaving Y to win only 40% . It is entirely possible for Y to play a set number of games with X and win more than him, but if X and Y were to play a million games of starcraft the probability that Y would win more games than X is VERY close to 0 like .000000001% . However if they were to play a 3 games (as in a bo3) the probability that Y would win more games is like 32 percent. Most of the time playing cheesy doesn't result in a win rate of >50% in starcraft II (the exception being in the early days when tournaments were dominated by 1 base scv pulls) because as the game gets figured out and some of those strategies are patched out they lose their effectiveness. But even without a >50% winrate it's totally possible to beat superior opponents. TL;DR Lower amounts of games in a series mean it is more likely for inferior opponents to advance. Which benefits inferior players that is protoss. Is that what you mean ? More like it benefits the player with more opening options. Protoss have much more builds that just straight up kill you if caught by surprise. why is having more builds better in bo3 than ,lets say, bo7
Because gimmicky playstyle won't work past the surprise? -_- (it's kind of the point of playing like that ffs)
|
On December 01 2013 04:16 Seiniyta wrote:
What did Life say? I didn't catch it. Naniwa
|
On December 01 2013 04:16 Seiniyta wrote:
What did Life say? I didn't catch it.
NaNiwa.
|
|
|
what was the question life being asked?
|
On December 01 2013 04:15 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:12 75 wrote:On December 01 2013 04:10 Qwerty85 wrote:On December 01 2013 04:06 samurai80 wrote:On December 01 2013 04:03 Rinny wrote:On December 01 2013 03:52 Shikyo wrote:
How on earth does a bo3 benefit "a style"? Consider the following, there are two starcraft players X and Y, X is slightly better at starcraft and he wins 60% of the games he plays against Y leaving Y to win only 40% . It is entirely possible for Y to play a set number of games with X and win more than him, but if X and Y were to play a million games of starcraft the probability that Y would win more games than X is VERY close to 0 like .000000001% . However if they were to play a 3 games (as in a bo3) the probability that Y would win more games is like 32 percent. Most of the time playing cheesy doesn't result in a win rate of >50% in starcraft II (the exception being in the early days when tournaments were dominated by 1 base scv pulls) because as the game gets figured out and some of those strategies are patched out they lose their effectiveness. But even without a >50% winrate it's totally possible to beat superior opponents. TL;DR Lower amounts of games in a series mean it is more likely for inferior opponents to advance. Which benefits inferior players that is protoss. Is that what you mean ? More like it benefits the player with more opening options. Protoss have much more builds that just straight up kill you if caught by surprise. why is having more builds better in bo3 than ,lets say, bo7 I don't think there is good sound theory about how to play a bo7 perfectly. We'd have to ask Mvp.
The more builds you can use, the better longer series are.
In a Bo1 or Bo3, you can perhaps get away with the same macro build. Not so much in a Bo7.
|
On December 01 2013 04:14 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:05 rinnnedor321 wrote:On December 01 2013 04:02 opisska wrote:On December 01 2013 03:59 rinnnedor321 wrote:
i hope flash will soon invent a build that gets a thor in a decent amount of time to shut down all the blink builds
thors are 300-200 and have such high dps they decimate stalkers and zealots and sentrys.
1-2 thors nicely timed to supplement a bio build to make them immune to blink
the PROBLEM with blink is actually the forcefields. if there was no forcefields terrans could just go bio normally vs blink and be fine. thors are mostly to solve the forcefield problem
blink costs like 150/150 for the upgrade 150/100 for the twilight. thors 150/100 for the armory then 300/200 per thor. imo the cost could probably be worth it considering if you go a standard bio build into a few thors you dont need to spend 600 minerals on bunkers that you otherwise would need to get if you scout blink
getting a few thors in there imo is the best plan to combat the stupid blink stuff which put innovation behind 1000 minerals just cuz he scouted blink and tried to prepare for it
hope flash discovers the right way to everything soon! Probably the right reaction to this is to abandond the build on the first sight of the Thor (while continuing to fake pressure) and then laugh about the two medivacs the terran misses for each Thor. thors combat stats are not that bad at all. their DPS is worth the cost. spending 600/400 to be immune to blink, and being behind 4 medivacs, while having tons of DPS instead, isnt that bad considering you are allowed to do a standard bio build and essentially not have to worry about blink ever again paying a 600/400 insurance policy to do bio while not worrying about bios stupidest counter (blink) the plan is just do normal bio but then somehow get the thors in there when blink would normally screw around with you. sacrifice the first 4 medivacs to be immune to blink. then get more medivacs after that. its a trade off sure but you wouldnt need to worry about blink 4 huge issues 1) Thors are too slow. If you mix 2 Thors in your army, your army is now much less mobile. 2) upgrades, over time, your Thor just get weaker and weaker due to no upgrades. 3) getting your medivacs late means you can't drop until p has Templars. Not a good plan 4) it is common misconception that gateway units don't trade well vs bio. They don't trade we'll vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Therefore, no having medivac support is the early mid game means p can trade with their gateway units while they tech to AoE tech.
correct. going the 2thor plan would mean terran has 0 offensive drop options against protoss and the protoss can tech to whatever he wants
but so can the terran
this is bad assuming terran has no lategame counter to protoss. that may be true, im hoping flash proves us all wrong in the future though
|
What was the question to which Life answered Naniwa?
|
On December 01 2013 04:16 JustPassingBy wrote:
What was the question to which Life answered Naniwa?
who's the most handsome progamer @ dreamhack.
|
Patience making it far for the brotoss council
|
On December 01 2013 04:16 DiuLaSing wrote:
what was the question life being asked?
Who is the most handsome progamer at DreamHack Winter?
|
On December 01 2013 04:16 DiuLaSing wrote:
what was the question life being asked? Who is the most handsome progamer at Dreamhack?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
