|
United States117 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:07 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:05 CAG Husker wrote:On March 13 2015 04:26 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 pure.Wasted wrote:
In g5, Life takes a huge engagement at his fourth. At the start of this engagement, Inno is maxed and banking over 1k minerals. Cut to the end of the fight, he's still sitting at 1k minerals and he's down like 30 supply despite the fight looking more or less even. If it were any other player, I'd just assume they failed to macro and be satisfied with that, but this is Innovation, forgetting to build Marines while he's attacking with Marines isn't really a thing that happens to him.
Kaelaris even pointed this out after the fight was over and he looked at the supply and he was like "I'll have to rewatch that game, something weird happened."
If anyone's figured it out or rewatches the series and has a theory, please reply here or PM me, I'm super curious. I rewatched the vod, he never stopped building marines during the fight, I would assume Life managed to resupply faster with a lot of larva but I'm not sure. Inno did not have all his reinforcements aggressively rallied so he lost at the fourth. Then he lost his Natural, but what the commentators didn't notice is that Life got supply blocked (I believe Inno took out three to four Overlords in the middle of the map while retreating) and this allowed Inno to catch up in supply. True enough, but after the first big fight, he was down 30 supply despite constant reproduction in a fight that looked like an even trade.
Inno's supply constantly trended downwards while Life's was more stable I guess because of impeccable Inject timings?
|
On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8).
Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions.
Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure
Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience
It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that
|
On March 13 2015 05:10 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8). Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions. Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that
Dark and Cure were 3rd place in KR and EU qualifiers respectively, that actually makes sense to use for seeding purposes. The other matchups are basically accidents from randomly drawn seed assignment.
|
United States117 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8).
Life should be seeded 1, 2, 3, or 4 and Inno should be 9, 10, or 11 so they should never play each other.
|
On March 13 2015 05:12 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:10 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8). Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions. Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that Dark and Cure were 3rd place in KR and EU qualifiers respectively, that actually makes sense to use for seeding purposes. The other matchups are basically accidents from randomly drawn seed assignment.
Dark and Cure maybe were appropriate, but that was just as much of an accident as Inno and Trap. The point is at a tournament of this magnitude with so much on the line seeding should not be that random
|
United States117 Posts
Although I don't like the seeding, I will say one thing. A lot of people are not giving Hydra, Bbyong, and Fantasy enough credit. They are definitely top players. Fantasy in particular has been on fire lately, at least Ro16 in GSL and NSSL, not many can claim that and Bbyong is Proleaguing hard. I don't really know how good Patience is, so I won't say anything until I watch him play tomorrow.
|
Damnit, disappointing result for Life.
|
Lorning
Belgica34432 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:14 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:12 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:10 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8). Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions. Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that Dark and Cure were 3rd place in KR and EU qualifiers respectively, that actually makes sense to use for seeding purposes. The other matchups are basically accidents from randomly drawn seed assignment. Dark and Cure maybe were appropriate, but that was just as much of an accident as Inno and Trap. The point is at a tournament of this magnitude with so much on the line seeding should not be that random
So you mean it should be fixed? That's not fair is it?
|
On March 13 2015 05:14 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:12 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:10 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8). Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions. Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that Dark and Cure were 3rd place in KR and EU qualifiers respectively, that actually makes sense to use for seeding purposes. The other matchups are basically accidents from randomly drawn seed assignment. Dark and Cure maybe were appropriate, but that was just as much of an accident as Inno and Trap. The point is at a tournament of this magnitude with so much on the line seeding should not be that random
I agree, I don't like the system either, I made this point a while ago already. This is messioso's response:
On March 06 2015 22:23 messioso wrote:
Nobody was given their exact seed. They were randomly drawn between the seeding pools by rolling dice, no joke.
This is the IEM world championship, all 4 tournament winners from the season are considered equal. So they get randomly drawn. Same with the runners-up, minus the fact they cannot meet their finalist opponent until the final.
I think it shows enough when you're all trying to come up with your own seeding and still none of them match. That is why we do it the way we do. The seeding is the exact opposite of arbitrary. You might not like it, but it has logic to it, and it's fair.
|
On March 13 2015 05:18 Lorning wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:14 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:12 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:10 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8). Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions. Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that Dark and Cure were 3rd place in KR and EU qualifiers respectively, that actually makes sense to use for seeding purposes. The other matchups are basically accidents from randomly drawn seed assignment. Dark and Cure maybe were appropriate, but that was just as much of an accident as Inno and Trap. The point is at a tournament of this magnitude with so much on the line seeding should not be that random So you mean it should be fixed? That's not fair is it?
Well the whole point of seeding is giving higher ranked players an advantage <.<
|
On March 13 2015 05:18 Lorning wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:14 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:12 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:10 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8). Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions. Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that Dark and Cure were 3rd place in KR and EU qualifiers respectively, that actually makes sense to use for seeding purposes. The other matchups are basically accidents from randomly drawn seed assignment. Dark and Cure maybe were appropriate, but that was just as much of an accident as Inno and Trap. The point is at a tournament of this magnitude with so much on the line seeding should not be that random So you mean it should be fixed? That's not fair is it?
Not fixed, seeded like every traditional sport or proper tournament ever. You rank the 16 players by whatever system you need to. Then 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15 and so on. Alternatively you could have the 4 IEM winners and rank them 1-4, the runner ups 5-8, and the qualifier winners 9-16. 1-4 randomly play 13-16. 5-8 randomly play 9-12. Still not correct, but preserves some of your beloved randomness
|
They should adopt the new WCS model -- the top seed get to choose his first round opponent, the second seed gets their choice of who is next etc. That way we avoid these stacked matches in the first round, unless someone actually elects it -- which would create its own brand of intrigue.
|
On March 13 2015 05:19 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:14 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:12 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:10 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8). Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions. Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that Dark and Cure were 3rd place in KR and EU qualifiers respectively, that actually makes sense to use for seeding purposes. The other matchups are basically accidents from randomly drawn seed assignment. Dark and Cure maybe were appropriate, but that was just as much of an accident as Inno and Trap. The point is at a tournament of this magnitude with so much on the line seeding should not be that random I agree, I don't like the system either, I made this point a while ago already. This is messioso's response: Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 22:23 messioso wrote:
Nobody was given their exact seed. They were randomly drawn between the seeding pools by rolling dice, no joke.
This is the IEM world championship, all 4 tournament winners from the season are considered equal. So they get randomly drawn. Same with the runners-up, minus the fact they cannot meet their finalist opponent until the final.
I think it shows enough when you're all trying to come up with your own seeding and still none of them match. That is why we do it the way we do. The seeding is the exact opposite of arbitrary. You might not like it, but it has logic to it, and it's fair.
That quote from Messioso... It has more logic to it then no seeding at all at least, but it is no way fair.
|
IEM winners should be able to pick their opponents, in order of their WCS rank
|
Went for a hard run to clear my mind after Life lost. Feeling better now, big congratulations to INnoVation, hopefully he goes far. 
There will be many more tournaments for Life to play (and win), starting with the GSL ro4.
Bring it on
|
There were 8 spots given through winning or being runner-up at a tournament, and 8 spots given through qualifiers. It's just the worst possible luck that Innovation and Life happened to be facing off in the ro16, because the two of them seem generally favoured against everyone else in the world. Regardless of the seeding method, random or fixed, sometimes it ends up having the two hottest players at the moment facing each other, while someone who would be considered objectively worse gets matched up with someone who is also worse.
I agree it's a shame that one of Life/Innovation had to leave the tournament so early, when that could've easily been the final, and I'm pretty sure IEM realizes this themselves. But how fair would it be if they redrew until a Life/Innovation final was possible?
|
Bisutopia19384 Posts
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about.
|
On March 13 2015 05:30 Neemi wrote:
There were 8 spots given through winning or being runner-up at a tournament, and 8 spots given through qualifiers. It's just the worst possible luck that Innovation and Life happened to be facing off in the ro16, because the two of them seem generally favoured against everyone else in the world. Regardless of the seeding method, random or fixed, sometimes it ends up having the two hottest players at the moment facing each other, while someone who would be considered objectively worse gets matched up with someone who is also worse.
I agree it's a shame that one of Life/Innovation had to leave the tournament so early, when that could've easily been the final, and I'm pretty sure IEM realizes this themselves. But how fair would it be if they redrew until a Life/Innovation final was possible?
Well even semi or Ro8 would have been better than this, tbh. Life and INno are both in the top 5 of the world currently IMO, both were (among the) favourites to win the whole tournament. For one of them to make their way all the way home back to Korea with basically nothing (in terms of what would have been possible if their opponent had been literally anyone else) is a very sad thing.
|
On March 13 2015 05:24 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:19 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:14 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:12 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:10 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Big J wrote:On March 13 2015 04:32 Darkhorse wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 Big J wrote:
Guys, give it a rest. People lose, even if they are really good. Especially if they play against very good players.
This discussion kind of reminds me about the "WCS Premier players cannot be considered good" thread... Life might be the best or one of the very best players in the world right now, but that doesn't mean tournaments should seed him into finals. If he loses he loses, plain as that.
Time to focus on the other players left. Who is going to stop Winnovation? Maru or herO or some dark horse like Dark or Horse Flash. "If he loses, he loses, plain as that"? The fact is that Innovation or Life from the get go was going to end up two grand in prize money and 150 WCS points down on some inferior players just by virtue of the bracket seeding This is not a qualifier though. This is the IEM top16 qualified 4 tournaments and 3 qualifiers. You're going to have a hard time creating a good seeding algorithm that isn't biased and is based upon the IEM results. E.g. if we seeded the top 8 as the IEM winners/runner ups and the bottom 8 as the guys from the qualifiers, we still might end up with Life (top 8) vs Innovation (bottom 8). Still doesn't excuse the fact that IEM runner ups nearly all got easier opponents than champions. Champions got: Innovation, Dark, Trap, Cure Runner ups got: Bbyong, Hydra, Fantasy, Patience It's not easy to figure out the "best" seeding algorithm, but it's not hard to come up with one that works better than that Dark and Cure were 3rd place in KR and EU qualifiers respectively, that actually makes sense to use for seeding purposes. The other matchups are basically accidents from randomly drawn seed assignment. Dark and Cure maybe were appropriate, but that was just as much of an accident as Inno and Trap. The point is at a tournament of this magnitude with so much on the line seeding should not be that random I agree, I don't like the system either, I made this point a while ago already. This is messioso's response: On March 06 2015 22:23 messioso wrote:
Nobody was given their exact seed. They were randomly drawn between the seeding pools by rolling dice, no joke.
This is the IEM world championship, all 4 tournament winners from the season are considered equal. So they get randomly drawn. Same with the runners-up, minus the fact they cannot meet their finalist opponent until the final.
I think it shows enough when you're all trying to come up with your own seeding and still none of them match. That is why we do it the way we do. The seeding is the exact opposite of arbitrary. You might not like it, but it has logic to it, and it's fair. That quote from Messioso... It has more logic to it then no seeding at all at least, but it is no way fair.
It's fair in that everyone gets a fair chance. The problem is that in a tournament like this where more than half the players are really freaking good you're bound to get some tough match ups even in the first round.
|
On March 13 2015 05:10 CAG Husker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:07 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:05 CAG Husker wrote:On March 13 2015 04:26 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 pure.Wasted wrote:
In g5, Life takes a huge engagement at his fourth. At the start of this engagement, Inno is maxed and banking over 1k minerals. Cut to the end of the fight, he's still sitting at 1k minerals and he's down like 30 supply despite the fight looking more or less even. If it were any other player, I'd just assume they failed to macro and be satisfied with that, but this is Innovation, forgetting to build Marines while he's attacking with Marines isn't really a thing that happens to him.
Kaelaris even pointed this out after the fight was over and he looked at the supply and he was like "I'll have to rewatch that game, something weird happened."
If anyone's figured it out or rewatches the series and has a theory, please reply here or PM me, I'm super curious. I rewatched the vod, he never stopped building marines during the fight, I would assume Life managed to resupply faster with a lot of larva but I'm not sure. Inno did not have all his reinforcements aggressively rallied so he lost at the fourth. Then he lost his Natural, but what the commentators didn't notice is that Life got supply blocked (I believe Inno took out three to four Overlords in the middle of the map while retreating) and this allowed Inno to catch up in supply. True enough, but after the first big fight, he was down 30 supply despite constant reproduction in a fight that looked like an even trade. Inno's supply constantly trended downwards while Life's was more stable I guess because of impeccable Inject timings?
So what, Inno didn't have enough Barracks? It's undeniable that he was floating over 900 minerals for a while during that engagement, so he might have been building units the whole time but maybe his infrastructure wasn't set up or something? I've never seen the guy float that much cash and it really puzzled me, especially because his supply was plummeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
