|
On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done.
Thanks for the recap.
Just a curious note: I notice that the term "allin" gets thrown about to describe heavily invested attack. But isn't an allin by definition a 'flip' which decides the match there and then (at least in poker)? If the allin failed but merely puts the player far behind and capable to mount another allin or macro up, can it really be considered an allin? Shouldn't an allin be limited to really extreme plays like 4pool in BW or one base vs two base plays? Just curious on your thoughts.
|
Austria24422 Posts
Trust is essentially dead here
|
On July 14 2016 20:59 Yello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. I prefer the way Olli describes it, those games were entertaining and stuff was happening. Especially the 2nd game, lots of good army movement by Zest, never overcommitting but always being active on the map. The 3rd game was really scrappy and fun to watch as well
Well at least the games were good, will catch the vods later and not cringe in agony.
|
On July 14 2016 21:02 sparklyresidue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 20:59 Yello wrote:On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. I prefer the way Olli describes it, those games were entertaining and stuff was happening. Especially the 2nd game, lots of good army movement by Zest, never overcommitting but always being active on the map. The 3rd game was really scrappy and fun to watch as well "Lurker turtle into gglords" may be the words of a biased individual by my expert assessment, unless we watched two different games.
Dont be so rude man ;D , i didnt catch the whole series cause i am at work
|
Poll: Recommend Final Match Game 1?★★★★★ - One of the best games this season (0) 0% ★★★★ - Highly recommended game (0) 0% ★★★ - Good game (0) 0% ★★ - Not recommended unless you have nothing better to do (3) 75% ★ - Do not see this game no matter what (1) 25% 4 total votes Your vote: Recommend Final Match Game 1? (Vote): ★★★★★ - One of the best games this season
(Vote): ★★★★ - Highly recommended game
(Vote): ★★★ - Good game
(Vote): ★★ - Not recommended unless you have nothing better to do
(Vote): ★ - Do not see this game no matter what
|
Austria24422 Posts
On July 14 2016 21:04 RKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. Thanks for the recap. Just a curious note: I notice that the term "allin" gets thrown about to describe heavily invested attack. But isn't an allin by definition a 'flip' which decides the match there and then (at least in poker)? If the allin failed but merely puts the player far behind and capable to mount another allin or macro up, can it really be considered an allin? Shouldn't an allin be limited to really extreme plays like 4pool in BW or one base vs two base plays? Just curious on your thoughts.
An all in to me is a strategy that, if it doesn't do the damage it's designed to, will have no chance to win the game.
|
On July 14 2016 21:05 Kaizor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 20:59 Yello wrote:On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. I prefer the way Olli describes it, those games were entertaining and stuff was happening. Especially the 2nd game, lots of good army movement by Zest, never overcommitting but always being active on the map. The 3rd game was really scrappy and fun to watch as well Well at least the games were good, will catch the vods later and not cringe in agony.
a warning: only watch Dark vs Trust if you are a Zerg and like to watch some well-executed all-ins totally destroying a player who looked quite lost
|
Italy12248 Posts
On July 14 2016 21:04 RKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. Thanks for the recap. Just a curious note: I notice that the term "allin" gets thrown about to describe heavily invested attack. But isn't an allin by definition a 'flip' which decides the match there and then (at least in poker)? If the allin failed but merely puts the player far behind and capable to mount another allin or macro up, can it really be considered an allin? Shouldn't an allin be limited to really extreme plays like 4pool in BW or one base vs two base plays? Just curious on your thoughts.
In poker an allin isn't necessarily a flip (in terms of chance to win), it's just when someone bets all his chips (ie, either i win this pot or i'm out of the game). That's also basically what starcraft allins are; you either deal game-ending damage or you're out of the game.
Of course in poker it's easy to tell if someone gets busted or not, in starcraft defining game ending damage can be trickier.
|
On July 14 2016 21:07 Yello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 21:05 Kaizor wrote:On July 14 2016 20:59 Yello wrote:On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. I prefer the way Olli describes it, those games were entertaining and stuff was happening. Especially the 2nd game, lots of good army movement by Zest, never overcommitting but always being active on the map. The 3rd game was really scrappy and fun to watch as well Well at least the games were good, will catch the vods later and not cringe in agony. a warning: only watch Dark vs Trust if you are a Zerg and like to watch some well-executed all-ins totally destroying a player who looked quite lost
Luckily i am a lowly gold zerg who would definitely relish watching some protoss get demolished after getting demolished myself countless times by the big book of protoss bs.
|
On July 14 2016 21:06 fealx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 21:02 sparklyresidue wrote:On July 14 2016 20:59 Yello wrote:On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. I prefer the way Olli describes it, those games were entertaining and stuff was happening. Especially the 2nd game, lots of good army movement by Zest, never overcommitting but always being active on the map. The 3rd game was really scrappy and fun to watch as well "Lurker turtle into gglords" may be the words of a biased individual by my expert assessment, unless we watched two different games. Dont be so rude man ;D , i didnt catch the whole series cause i am at work
Sorry, it's my nature! I thought the lurker drops were cool.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On July 14 2016 21:08 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 21:04 RKC wrote:On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. Thanks for the recap. Just a curious note: I notice that the term "allin" gets thrown about to describe heavily invested attack. But isn't an allin by definition a 'flip' which decides the match there and then (at least in poker)? If the allin failed but merely puts the player far behind and capable to mount another allin or macro up, can it really be considered an allin? Shouldn't an allin be limited to really extreme plays like 4pool in BW or one base vs two base plays? Just curious on your thoughts. In poker an allin isn't necessarily a flip (in terms of chance to win), it's just when someone bets all his chips (ie, either i win this pot or i'm out of the game). That's also basically what starcraft allins are; you either deal game-ending damage or you're out of the game. Of course in poker it's easy to tell if someone gets busted or not, in starcraft defining game ending damage can be trickier.
It doesn't have to be game-ending damage in my book. Say you're on two bases and committing to killing a third base and if you succeed, you stay alive. That's not necessarily game-ending, but you get to continue the game. If you fail, you're dead. That's also an all in imo.
That's just my definition though. Maybe my interpretation is a bit liberal.
|
Austria24422 Posts
Ah geez, wrong buttons and stuff
|
Nice scout Zest. Why would you try to scout tech buildings anyway?
|
On July 14 2016 21:12 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 21:08 Teoita wrote:On July 14 2016 21:04 RKC wrote:On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. Thanks for the recap. Just a curious note: I notice that the term "allin" gets thrown about to describe heavily invested attack. But isn't an allin by definition a 'flip' which decides the match there and then (at least in poker)? If the allin failed but merely puts the player far behind and capable to mount another allin or macro up, can it really be considered an allin? Shouldn't an allin be limited to really extreme plays like 4pool in BW or one base vs two base plays? Just curious on your thoughts. In poker an allin isn't necessarily a flip (in terms of chance to win), it's just when someone bets all his chips (ie, either i win this pot or i'm out of the game). That's also basically what starcraft allins are; you either deal game-ending damage or you're out of the game. Of course in poker it's easy to tell if someone gets busted or not, in starcraft defining game ending damage can be trickier. It doesn't have to be game-ending damage in my book. Say you're on two bases and committing to killing a third base and if you succeed, you stay alive. That's not necessarily game-ending, but you get to continue the game. If you fail, you're dead. That's just my definition though. Maybe my interpretation is a bit liberal.
Yea if the game continues on somewhat even foots you could compare it to a split pot in poker, i guess.
|
On July 14 2016 21:08 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 21:04 RKC wrote:On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. Thanks for the recap. Just a curious note: I notice that the term "allin" gets thrown about to describe heavily invested attack. But isn't an allin by definition a 'flip' which decides the match there and then (at least in poker)? If the allin failed but merely puts the player far behind and capable to mount another allin or macro up, can it really be considered an allin? Shouldn't an allin be limited to really extreme plays like 4pool in BW or one base vs two base plays? Just curious on your thoughts. In poker an allin isn't necessarily a flip (in terms of chance to win), it's just when someone bets all his chips (ie, either i win this pot or i'm out of the game). That's also basically what starcraft allins are; you either deal game-ending damage or you're out of the game. Of course in poker it's easy to tell if someone gets busted or not, in starcraft defining game ending damage can be trickier.
Sure, 'flip' isn't the best word to use, my mistake. You could have the nuts and allin and be 100% of winning.
Probably 'bust' is a better word. The attack either kills the enemy or you go bust and lose. So a heavy committed attack that fails and leave you far behind isn't necessarily an allin (in poker it would be like putting in 80% of your chips in the pot and losing - you're way far behind but still have a slim chance of coming back). I know we may be pulling hairs here.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On July 14 2016 21:15 RKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 21:08 Teoita wrote:On July 14 2016 21:04 RKC wrote:On July 14 2016 20:56 Olli wrote:On July 14 2016 20:50 fealx wrote:On July 14 2016 20:47 Kaizor wrote:
Any kind soul to summarize Dark vs Zest series. Just got back from work. dont kow what happend in g1 sry but g2: Lurker turtle + drops into gglords g3: Failed Semi allin by dark into counterattack by Zest but he shades all his adepts into banelings G1: Dark tried a roach/ling all in but it did essentially nothing, Zest macro'd up and killed him G2: Dark defended a pre-lurker attack without really taking any damage, did tons of damage with lurker drops but then Zest did really well with superior army movement. Just didn't have the economy back at home to deal with the BL transition. G3: Dark did a ling/bane/queen all in, but then decided to all in again behind it, while Zest counterattacked. Dark killed the third, held the attack, won the game. By the time his adepts shaded into banelings, it was essentially already done. Thanks for the recap. Just a curious note: I notice that the term "allin" gets thrown about to describe heavily invested attack. But isn't an allin by definition a 'flip' which decides the match there and then (at least in poker)? If the allin failed but merely puts the player far behind and capable to mount another allin or macro up, can it really be considered an allin? Shouldn't an allin be limited to really extreme plays like 4pool in BW or one base vs two base plays? Just curious on your thoughts. In poker an allin isn't necessarily a flip (in terms of chance to win), it's just when someone bets all his chips (ie, either i win this pot or i'm out of the game). That's also basically what starcraft allins are; you either deal game-ending damage or you're out of the game. Of course in poker it's easy to tell if someone gets busted or not, in starcraft defining game ending damage can be trickier. Sure, 'flip' isn't the best word to use, my mistake. You could have the nuts and allin and be 100% of winning. Probably 'bust' is a better word. The attack either kills the enemy or you go bust and lose. So a heavy committed attack that fails and leave you far behind isn't necessarily an allin (in poker it would be like putting in 80% of your chips in the pot and losing - you're way far behind but still have a slim chance of coming back). I know we may be pulling hairs here.
Yeah that's how i think about it as well.
|
why would you ever fight dts with workers? He could have pulled and not taken any damage if he micros his stalkers
I'd consider that attack by Zest an all-in as well. Trust went for all the tech units while Zest went mass adept-stalker. If Zest doesn't kill him there Trust will have the way better army so he had to commit and subsequently lost the game
|
|
|
Zest, stop fucking throw away your mass adepts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
