| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Cricketer12
United States13990 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:15 Elentos wrote: Meanwhile on the other side of the world, Sack_Of_Wet_Mice closes his browser and notes in his diary: "Zest is still a patchtoss" I feel like SOWM and Swag_bro would be in the same cafe during this... | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:15 Elentos wrote: Meanwhile on the other side of the world, Sack_Of_Wet_Mice closes his browser and notes in his diary: "Zest is still a patchtoss" Haha yeah i wouldn't have been surprised to see him posting today  | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50600 Posts
| ||
|
Penev
28512 Posts
| ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50600 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16021 Posts
the same situation we have now, outmultitasking someone can be nice but in the end everything that matters is that 1 engagement and the rest of the game is completely irrelevant. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:20 BLinD-RawR wrote: how did zest lose? He didn't play well. AT ALL. Like not even close. | ||
|
Elentos
55561 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:20 BLinD-RawR wrote: how did zest lose? Bad decisions here, atrocious macro there. Also lots of defended DTs. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:23 Charoisaur wrote: it's not so much about not being able to win consistently but more about bad game design because of anticlimatic engagements. You could see it in HotS pvp where a player could outplay his opponent the entire game, harass constantly with warpprism etc... then the engagement comes the opponent has maybe 1 collossus more and has a better position and instantly wins the game despite everything that happened before. the same situation we have now, outmultitasking someone can be nice but in the end everything that matters is that 1 engagement and the rest of the game is completely irrelevant. If you are able to get an army which can beat the enemy army you probably didn't really get outplayed that hard. | ||
|
Penev
28512 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:22 BLinD-RawR wrote: Its not. I know :/ | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16021 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:25 The_Red_Viper wrote: If you are able to get an army which can beat the enemy army you probably didn't really get outplayed that hard. I'm not talking about THAT big leads that you can't possibly lose an engagement but smaller leads when one player is maybe 20-30 army supply ahead with a superior economy. in this situation it's still entirely possible to lose the game if you take a bad engagement. also there's zero comeback potential after taking a bad engagement | ||
|
Elentos
55561 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:28 Charoisaur wrote: I'm not talking about THAT big leads that you can't possibly lose an engagement but smaller leads when one player is maybe 20-30 army supply ahead with a superior economy. in this situation it's still entirely possible to lose the game if you take a bad engagement. But that's kind of always true in SC2, isn't it? This is not really a new development, and if the engagement is bad enough, it's true for every matchup. I mean how much comeback potential do you have after a bad engage against a Protoss or Zerg if they don't mess up? | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16021 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:31 Elentos wrote: But that's kind of always true in SC2, isn't it? This is not really a new development, and if the engagement is bad enough, it's true for every matchup. but in the other matchups there is much more trading going on. in HotS PvP and LotV TvT it's mostly poking around for a few minutes waiting for the perfect opportunity to attack before commiting and then everything gets decided in a few seconds. Also supply leads mean a lot less and a better position makes the trade so favorable that it becomes almost impossible to recover after a bad engagement. in the other matchups if both players have even supply the fight is rarely so onesided that it instantly decides the game. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:28 Charoisaur wrote: I'm not talking about THAT big leads that you can't possibly lose an engagement but smaller leads when one player is maybe 20-30 army supply ahead with a superior economy. in this situation it's still entirely possible to lose the game if you take a bad engagement. also there's zero comeback potential after taking a bad engagement Yeah this is the real problem here imo, but as elentos already said that was always true in sc2. Not that i disagree with you about Tankivacs being bad for the game in general, but it didn't really make worse terrans win more often in tvt as far as i can tell. | ||
|
Daswollvieh
5553 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:28 Charoisaur wrote: I'm not talking about THAT big leads that you can't possibly lose an engagement but smaller leads when one player is maybe 20-30 army supply ahead with a superior economy. in this situation it's still entirely possible to lose the game if you take a bad engagement. also there's zero comeback potential after taking a bad engagement Makes for exciting fights and short games.  | ||
|
Elentos
55561 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:36 Charoisaur wrote: but in the other matchups there is much more trading going on. in HotS PvP and LotV TvT it's mostly poking around for a few minutes waiting for the perfect opportunity to attack before commiting and then everything gets decided in a few seconds. Also supply leads mean a lot less and a better position makes the trade so favorable that it becomes almost impossible to recover after a bad engagement. in the other matchups if both players have even supply the fight is rarely so onesided that it instantly decides the game. Imo you generalize this way too much. It happens and it sucks when it does. But it depends so much on who is playing and how they match up against each other that it's really not as bad in the end. It could be better and maybe removing the tankivac would help, but I can already see Terrans around the world struggling to clean up doom drops because they have to unsiege and siege their tanks. Again. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16021 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:47 Elentos wrote: It could be better and maybe removing the tankivac would help, but I can already see Terrans around the world struggling to clean up doom drops because they have to unsiege and siege their tanks. Again. I was okay with that in Hots the bigger problem are probably liberators because those could siege on tanks without them being able to escape. | ||
stuchiu
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18550 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:52 stuchiu wrote: Taeja even half dead still has what it takes to beat up Zest. Hah days like these must make you feel so awesome with your GOAT lists :p | ||
|
Elentos
55561 Posts
On August 10 2016 22:51 Charoisaur wrote: I was okay with that in Hots the bigger problem are probably liberators because those could siege on tanks without them being able to escape.So we all make huge viking fleets to protect our tanks and then suddenly Bomber just makes 100 stimmed marines with 3/3 and we realize our composition was incomplete. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Big Brain Bouts
Elazer vs Nicoract
Reynor vs Scarlett
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs TBD
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs TBD
ByuN vs Nicoract
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
|
|
|
EPT
