[GSL] Code S Season 2 2016 - Ro16 Group A - Page 51

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"

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"

On August 10 2016 22:20 BLinD-RawR wrote:
how did zest lose?

On August 10 2016 22:20 BLinD-RawR wrote:
how did zest lose?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

On August 10 2016 22:52 stuchiu wrote:
Taeja even half dead still has what it takes to beat up Zest. Hah

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.