On March 14 2014 16:56 KoRStarvid wrote: can't really argue the fact that Blizzard is letting the game stay in this state. When I saw Jaedong play swarm host yesterday, I really didn't care that he lost, because if even Jaedong feels forced into playing a passive and boring style, then there's something deeply wrong with the game.
Will be watching this tournament, but I have a feeling I won't be watching much more SC2 for a while - it's just too boring at the moment.
Yesterday was a first time for a long time I watched a single game of PvZ. That matchup is completely shit and I can really feel pro gamer thoughts. Im pretty sure I wont watch a single PvZ in this tournament if Naniwa is not playing. Blizzard please fix this game.
You're wrong, Swarm Hosts are shit. Nothing is wrong with the match-up besides them.
Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
This is what PvZ can look like:
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
I guess he already watched that game before...
As for the swarmhost being boring, I think everyone agrees. However, they are needed. A lot of players also feel Photon overcharge and time wrap and forcefields are boring as well. But again, they are needed for 'balance'...
A necessary evil is still evil. Seriously, that argument makes no sense - what's the point of balance in a game if it leads to the game being boring to watch/play? It's not like balance by definition eliminates fun or excitement, it's just poor design and nonchalant management from Blizzard's part.
On March 14 2014 16:56 KoRStarvid wrote: can't really argue the fact that Blizzard is letting the game stay in this state. When I saw Jaedong play swarm host yesterday, I really didn't care that he lost, because if even Jaedong feels forced into playing a passive and boring style, then there's something deeply wrong with the game.
Will be watching this tournament, but I have a feeling I won't be watching much more SC2 for a while - it's just too boring at the moment.
Yesterday was a first time for a long time I watched a single game of PvZ. That matchup is completely shit and I can really feel pro gamer thoughts. Im pretty sure I wont watch a single PvZ in this tournament if Naniwa is not playing. Blizzard please fix this game.
You're wrong, Swarm Hosts are shit. Nothing is wrong with the match-up besides them.
Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
Yesterday was a first time for a long time I watched a single game of PvZ. That matchup is completely shit and I can really feel pro gamer thoughts. Im pretty sure I wont watch a single PvZ in this tournament if Naniwa is not playing. Blizzard please fix this game.
You're wrong, Swarm Hosts are shit. Nothing is wrong with the match-up besides them.
Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
You're wrong, Swarm Hosts are shit. Nothing is wrong with the match-up besides them.
Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
I'm not detracting from the fact that Rogue is a good player, I'm saying that the game was exciting because Rain made critical mistakes that "normally" don't occur because progamers usually don't make mistakes like that, where as the standard defensive play in PvZ usually gravitates towards in what people consider boring strategies (i.e. SH) due to the zerg being unable to capitalize on said mistakes.
I think it's safe to say that people appreciate spectacle in competition the most if all parties are performing at their best and when there is no mental detraction in the back of your mind saying "wow this player made such uncharacteristic mistakes, I wish I could see these two play at their best". There is a valid complaint if players playing their best gravitates towards games with samey strategies like BL/Infestor or SH/viper/corrupter instead of a game with loads of base snipes, action all over the map, tech switches, etc. Wouldn't you want a game where protoss is sniping bases, walking immortals on their own, and fighting all over the map against a constantly tech switching zerg to be the norm, instead of the exception?
You're wrong, Swarm Hosts are shit. Nothing is wrong with the match-up besides them.
Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
lol, ok. I'm not trying to diminish Rogue's effort or skill here, but seriously, that zealot has to be in the correct position and be on "hold". Don't get me wrong, Rogue definitely made the most out of it, but it doesn't matter which perspective you look at it from - Rain was objectively sloppy.
On March 14 2014 17:59 deacon.frost wrote: [quote] Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
I'm not detracting from the fact that Rogue is a good player, I'm saying that the game was exciting because Rain made critical mistakes that "normally" don't occur because progamers usually don't make mistakes like that, where as the standard defensive play in PvZ usually gravitates towards in what people consider boring strategies (i.e. SH) due to the zerg being unable to capitalize on said mistakes.
I think it's safe to say that people appreciate spectacle in competition the most if all parties are performing at their best and when there is no mental detraction in the back of your mind saying "wow this player made such uncharacteristic mistakes, I wish I could see these two play at their best". There is a valid complaint if players playing their best gravitates towards games with samey strategies like BL/Infestor or SH/viper/corrupter instead of a game with loads of base snipes, action all over the map, tech switches, etc.
There will always be mistakes with players. i'm sure if i went through all the Rain Vods right now, i would find a few games where his zealot wasn't on hold postion/ in the correct postion. And i'm sure that in most of these Vods, it wasn't capitalized on by the zerg player, and had i not told you that this mistake was made, you would of told me he played great that game. In PvZ I see a lot of times where the Protoss player goes for an allin vs zerg, like immortal sentry or with other units. and sometimes, if you're watching very VERY carefully, you will see them forget a warp in cycle.. Now most people aren't watching that part, and if the protoss wins the game, you would say they still played well. Players will make mistakes, thats a natural part of playing this game. Whether it be with decsion making, macro or micro, it happens, by every player, in every game. So why not focus on the good, not the bad? rouge could of chose to poke in and out of the third trying to get a few probes, he could of kept them at home, but he made a great decsion. It was great on his part, not bad on rains.
You're wrong, Swarm Hosts are shit. Nothing is wrong with the match-up besides them.
Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
Because there are different levels of good play as well as bad play. When ByuL lost 45 mutas to 8 spores, sure you could say his opponent played good by putting 8 spores there in the first place. But is that really the case or a good description of the game.
The extreme always gets the attention. When a player playing great beats a player playing good, the player playing great will be the focus. When a player playing decent beats a player playing sloppy, the player playing sloppy will be the focus. When you look at highlights (from esports or sports), you see the great plays and you see the sloppy plays/fails. The 'decent' plays are rarely shown.
On March 14 2014 17:59 deacon.frost wrote: [quote] Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
lol, ok. I'm not trying to diminish Rogue's effort or skill here, but seriously, that zealot has to be in the correct position and be on "hold". Don't get me wrong, Rogue definitely made the most out of it, but it doesn't matter which perspective you look at it from - Rain was objectively sloppy.
What i'm getting at is there will always be mistakes by players. whether you notice them or not is a different story. Rouge identified a crucial mistake by rain and capitialized on it. Rouge made mistakes too, like floating resources, not building enough static defence, The only difference is that rain didn't capitalize on it.
On March 14 2014 17:59 deacon.frost wrote: [quote] Not exactly. The option to dig swarm hosts AND forget is shit. I really hate these games, where zerg just burrow SH and DO NOT MOVE!!! Like Hasu vs JD >< The possibility to do this in such a fast paced game is ridiculous ><
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
Because there are different levels of good play as well as bad play. When ByuL lost 45 mutas to 8 spores, sure you could say his opponent played good by putting 8 spores there in the first place. But is that really the case or a good description of the game.
The extreme always gets the attention. When a player playing great beats a player playing good, the player playing great will be the focus. When a player playing decent beats a player playing sloppy, the player playing sloppy will be the focus. When you look at highlights (from esports or sports), you see the great plays and you see the sloppy plays/fails. The 'decent' plays are rarely shown.
But forgetting to put a single zealot on hold postion is hardly comparable to flying your entire army into 8 spores.
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
I'm not detracting from the fact that Rogue is a good player, I'm saying that the game was exciting because Rain made critical mistakes that "normally" don't occur because progamers usually don't make mistakes like that, where as the standard defensive play in PvZ usually gravitates towards in what people consider boring strategies (i.e. SH) due to the zerg being unable to capitalize on said mistakes.
I think it's safe to say that people appreciate spectacle in competition the most if all parties are performing at their best and when there is no mental detraction in the back of your mind saying "wow this player made such uncharacteristic mistakes, I wish I could see these two play at their best". There is a valid complaint if players playing their best gravitates towards games with samey strategies like BL/Infestor or SH/viper/corrupter instead of a game with loads of base snipes, action all over the map, tech switches, etc.
There will always be mistakes with players. i'm sure if i went through all the Rain Vods right now, i would find a few games where his zealot wasn't on hold postion/ in the correct postion. And i'm sure that in most of these Vods, it wasn't capitalized on by the zerg player, and had i not told you that this mistake was made, you would of told me he played great that game. In PvZ I see a lot of times where the Protoss player goes for an allin vs zerg, like immortal sentry or with other units. and sometimes, if you're watching very VERY carefully, you will see them forget a warp in cycle.. Now most people aren't watching that part, and if the protoss wins the game, you would say they still played well. Players will make mistakes, thats a natural part of playing this game. Whether it be with decsion making, macro or micro, it happens, by every player, in every game. So why not focus on the good, not the bad? rouge could of chose to poke in and out of the third trying to get a few probes, he could of kept them at home, but he made a great decsion. It was great on his part, not bad on rains.
I disagree. Although all terrans pros have failed splitting vs banes at some points, when it happens in game, it is still a 'mistake' by that player. Same with things like losing oracles, failing forcefields. Yes, these mistakes will always happen but that shouldn't make us stop calling them as mistakes.
oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
lol, ok. I'm not trying to diminish Rogue's effort or skill here, but seriously, that zealot has to be in the correct position and be on "hold". Don't get me wrong, Rogue definitely made the most out of it, but it doesn't matter which perspective you look at it from - Rain was objectively sloppy.
What i'm getting at is there will always be mistakes by players. whether you notice them or not is a different story. Rouge identified a crucial mistake by rain and capitialized on it. Rouge made mistakes too, like floating resources, not building enough static defence, The only difference is that rain didn't capitalize on it.
Yeah, sure, I'm not assuming that either player played "perfect" games aside from this specific event. The point however is that in most circumstances, letting a ton of zerglings ravage your base is a mistake of a much larger magnitude than missing a injection cycle, AND it is easily avoided - just put the zealot in the correct position!
But, dude, if you wanna see things from the bright side, go ahead! No reason for you to be skeptical about the chain of events in that game at all, just enjoy the fun. ^^
On March 14 2014 18:39 Ej_ wrote: [quote] oh you mean when protoss lets tons of lings into his main and natural, doesnt make a 4th and still almost wins?
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
I'm not detracting from the fact that Rogue is a good player, I'm saying that the game was exciting because Rain made critical mistakes that "normally" don't occur because progamers usually don't make mistakes like that, where as the standard defensive play in PvZ usually gravitates towards in what people consider boring strategies (i.e. SH) due to the zerg being unable to capitalize on said mistakes.
I think it's safe to say that people appreciate spectacle in competition the most if all parties are performing at their best and when there is no mental detraction in the back of your mind saying "wow this player made such uncharacteristic mistakes, I wish I could see these two play at their best". There is a valid complaint if players playing their best gravitates towards games with samey strategies like BL/Infestor or SH/viper/corrupter instead of a game with loads of base snipes, action all over the map, tech switches, etc.
There will always be mistakes with players. i'm sure if i went through all the Rain Vods right now, i would find a few games where his zealot wasn't on hold postion/ in the correct postion. And i'm sure that in most of these Vods, it wasn't capitalized on by the zerg player, and had i not told you that this mistake was made, you would of told me he played great that game. In PvZ I see a lot of times where the Protoss player goes for an allin vs zerg, like immortal sentry or with other units. and sometimes, if you're watching very VERY carefully, you will see them forget a warp in cycle.. Now most people aren't watching that part, and if the protoss wins the game, you would say they still played well. Players will make mistakes, thats a natural part of playing this game. Whether it be with decsion making, macro or micro, it happens, by every player, in every game. So why not focus on the good, not the bad? rouge could of chose to poke in and out of the third trying to get a few probes, he could of kept them at home, but he made a great decsion. It was great on his part, not bad on rains.
I disagree. Although all terrans pros have failed splitting vs banes at some points, when it happens in game, it is still a 'mistake' by that player. Same with things like losing oracles, failing forcefields. Yes, these mistakes will always happen but that shouldn't make us stop calling them as mistakes.
Thats a difference in perspective, which is fine. Both sides have merits to them, and it really is just perspective. What really got me angry was people like Calihead saying "are you for real now" to zealously when he brought up a perfectly valid argument. it's fine to disagree, but you shouldn't try and invalidate someones argument because you personally don't agree with it.
Well I'm glad you watched the entire game in a minute
That game was exciting because Rain made so many mistakes, I don't see how you can really debate that. Had he not made those mistakes he would have taken a 4th, gotten starports up, and had the ability to counter the muta follow up and won easily.
You could easily make the argument that most players wouldn't have gotten lings into Rain's bases and that Rogue being pretty good at Starcraft is what allowed him to. But people prefer to call everything throws. I think people are very biased against PvZ because they've seen a bunch of terrible games and thus can't appreciate a game of PvZ when it's actually good. It's fine to think that the game wasn't good, but saying it was all about the lings and nothing else is selling it pretty short
What? Are you being real right now, Rain didn't block the choke with a zealot properly, repeatedly even after he noticed it, no amount of Rogue being a good player would have made his lings magically pass through a pylon zealot wall. If a terran made a depot wall that wasn't ling proof and loses 20 scvs to just speedlings you would say the same thing that the terran made a mistake.
I really have to +1 this. A zealot in wrong position can in no way be directly correlated to anything that Rogue did. Rogue is really good and jumped on the opportunity, but the blame is on Rain in this case.
I really have to -1 this. What he's saying is that rouge chose to go in with lings at the correct moment. and i know that if i had just gotten lings into a protoss main then i would figure he would be prepared for the next time with a zealot. Rouge took the opportunity in assuming he wasn't ready. For example, how many times in PvT have you seen protoss players with an empty warp prism just sitting there while they turtle up with their deathball army. a lot of times, they don't take the opportunity to put a few extra HT into the warp prisms and go for storm drops. does that mean their opponent is bad if they can't defend it perfectly? no, it means that the protoss player was playing well and used the units he had to their fullest potential. It's all about perspective, you can choose to believe that one player played really well, or another played terribly. In a game like Starcraft, it's impossible to play an absolutely perfect game, so why not focus on what a player did well, then what another player did poorly?
I'm not detracting from the fact that Rogue is a good player, I'm saying that the game was exciting because Rain made critical mistakes that "normally" don't occur because progamers usually don't make mistakes like that, where as the standard defensive play in PvZ usually gravitates towards in what people consider boring strategies (i.e. SH) due to the zerg being unable to capitalize on said mistakes.
I think it's safe to say that people appreciate spectacle in competition the most if all parties are performing at their best and when there is no mental detraction in the back of your mind saying "wow this player made such uncharacteristic mistakes, I wish I could see these two play at their best". There is a valid complaint if players playing their best gravitates towards games with samey strategies like BL/Infestor or SH/viper/corrupter instead of a game with loads of base snipes, action all over the map, tech switches, etc.
There will always be mistakes with players. i'm sure if i went through all the Rain Vods right now, i would find a few games where his zealot wasn't on hold postion/ in the correct postion. And i'm sure that in most of these Vods, it wasn't capitalized on by the zerg player, and had i not told you that this mistake was made, you would of told me he played great that game. In PvZ I see a lot of times where the Protoss player goes for an allin vs zerg, like immortal sentry or with other units. and sometimes, if you're watching very VERY carefully, you will see them forget a warp in cycle.. Now most people aren't watching that part, and if the protoss wins the game, you would say they still played well. Players will make mistakes, thats a natural part of playing this game. Whether it be with decsion making, macro or micro, it happens, by every player, in every game. So why not focus on the good, not the bad? rouge could of chose to poke in and out of the third trying to get a few probes, he could of kept them at home, but he made a great decsion. It was great on his part, not bad on rains.
I disagree. Although all terrans pros have failed splitting vs banes at some points, when it happens in game, it is still a 'mistake' by that player. Same with things like losing oracles, failing forcefields. Yes, these mistakes will always happen but that shouldn't make us stop calling them as mistakes.
Thats a difference in perspective, which is fine. Both sides have merits to them, and it really is just perspective. What really got me angry was people like Calihead saying "are you for real now" to zealously when he brought up a perfectly valid argument. it's fine to disagree, but you shouldn't try and invalidate someones argument because you personally don't agree with it.
What? If you can rationally invalidate an argument, then why shouldn't you? Or are you saying that we shouldn't use such rethorics?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3p6ONk5.gif)
