EPTi really enjoyed the normal-daily week!
Day[9].tv Daily - Page 716
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ohdamn
Germany765 Posts
i really enjoyed the normal-daily week! | ||
|
Sevryn
698 Posts
On November 12 2010 22:32 M0KAS wrote: No its not sorry. Hope I can get one of these shirts. pls help http://thehandsomenerd.spreadshirt.com/commands-white-A5182514/customize/color/1 | ||
|
aNDRoM
United States637 Posts
On November 13 2010 01:01 NeonGenesis wrote: I think it's a shirt from his college. You won't find it on handsomenerd. Yeah, I think it was made by Harvey Mudd students in response to a t-shirt that the Scripps women made one year. He talks about it in one of his dailies. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
Inka had like double Fenix's harvesters ever since he failed to build turrets vs DTs, and the game would have been completely different. A really bad choice in my opinion to showcase "different colossus timings". Maybe every T doesn't get 3 turrets as a part of their standard build yet, but it'll be the standard in every single macro build after a while, so this kind of stuff is really inconsistant. He said things like "look at how safe that army seems!" When inka had 130 supply vs 80. Of course you'll feel safe when you're 50 supply ahead, but you shouldn't over-analyze it with unit composition. He'd most likely have looked even more safe with 5 Colossus and a few less Gateway units, to be honest. He addressed this in the daily but was wrong while addressing it... Pretty funny actually. As DTs enter, supplies are 45 vs 45, after the attack's done, supplies are about 65-37 for Inka with Inka having nearly 2x workers and Fenix's natural not properly mining for the longest time. This is when there's a lull and the Zealot and DT attack the debris. "They didn't do a lot of damage" right... Later on, after Inka loses his Zealot and DT at the expo with the next attack, Fenix is at 50 supply and Inka at 98 supply. He still keeps counting units Inka lost... maybe look at the game? It also was pretty funny how he only counted the units Inka lost but didn't note the units Fenix lost. So biased to support his point of view that he didn't even stay objective. And yeah Day[9] we all know you can get maxed in 16 mins pretty easily and Inka attacked at 17 minutes with only 130 supply so he had lost a lot of units, but his opponent lost so much more that it really doesn't matter if you compare it to a vacuum or something. You need to compare to the opponent. | ||
|
red_ice82
United States19 Posts
On November 13 2010 01:01 NeonGenesis wrote: I think it's a shirt from his college. You won't find it on handsomenerd. Yes, this question was asked about this shirt back on D9D#127, interesting story: "Men can't go here, but the women can choose to make them come if they want to, but they by no means have to and are, in fact, in complete control at all times in the hypothetical situation represented on this t-shirt." | ||
|
Crashburn
United States476 Posts
On November 13 2010 01:51 Shikyo wrote: The latest daily was really disappointing. Inka got way ahead with DTs and the game was over, just got dragged and Day9 way overanalyses it about army composition etc. when Inka could have made anything he wanted and still won. Inka had like double Fenix's harvesters ever since he failed to build turrets vs DTs, and the game would have been completely different. A really bad choice in my opinion to showcase "different colossus timings". Maybe every T doesn't get 3 turrets as a part of their standard build yet, but it'll be the standard in every single macro build after a while, so this kind of stuff is really inconsistant. He said things like "look at how safe that army seems!" When inka had 130 supply vs 80. Of course you'll feel safe when you're 50 supply ahead, but you shouldn't over-analyze it with unit composition. He'd most likely have looked even more safe with 5 Colossus and a few less Gateway units, to be honest. He addressed this in the daily but was wrong while addressing it... Pretty funny actually. As DTs enter, supplies are 45 vs 45, after the attack's done, supplies are about 65-37 for Inka with Inka having nearly 2x workers and Fenix's natural not properly mining for the longest time. This is when there's a lull and the Zealot and DT attack the debris. "They didn't do a lot of damage" right... Later on, after Inka loses his Zealot and DT at the expo with the next attack, Fenix is at 50 supply and Inka at 98 supply. He still keeps counting units Inka lost... maybe look at the game? It also was pretty funny how he only counted the units Inka lost but didn't note the units Fenix lost. So biased to support his point of view that he didn't even stay objective. And yeah Day[9] we all know you can get maxed in 16 mins pretty easily and Inka attacked at 17 minutes with only 130 supply so he had lost a lot of units, but his opponent lost so much more that it really doesn't matter if you compare it to a vacuum or something. You need to compare to the opponent. His point wasn't dependent on army size; he was using it as an illustration of the benefits of not rushing to colossus. If Inka had rushed to colossus like most protoss players do, Fenix would have had a substantially larger army and he would have had a substantially smaller army. Fenix would have had the benefit of an unfettered natural expansion and the use of all of his mules. The problem with colossus rushing is that you can put little to no pressure on your opponent, hampering the effectiveness of a colossus rush. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
| ||
|
Crashburn
United States476 Posts
On November 13 2010 02:23 Shikyo wrote: ^If his DT rush was defended with a few Turrets Inka had a high possibility of dying before he even had a chance to get a Colossus, and if that was his point, maybe he could have picked a game that's not over at 7 minutes, since Inka could have rushed straight for Colossus off the DTs and been completely fine anyway. It didn't really matter what he did with that lead. He didn't even need Colossi at all. Yeah, but that wasn't the point. It was that Inka decided to get colossus, irrespective of whether they were necessary or not. Day9 was illustrating the difference between Inka getting colossus following the DT push versus rushing to colossus. He wasn't making any points about the viability of the strategy. Honestly, I don't think DT-into-colossus is a realistic, viable strategy. But as long as you can do something to buy yourself time, that is better than simply sitting in your base praying to hold on for the first 8 minutes. | ||
|
Dystisis
Norway713 Posts
On November 13 2010 02:23 Shikyo wrote: ^If his DT rush was defended with a few Turrets Inka had a high possibility of dying before he even had a chance to get a Colossus, and if that was his point, maybe he could have picked a game that's not over at 7 minutes, since Inka could have rushed straight for Colossus off the DTs and been completely fine anyway. It didn't really matter what he did with that lead. He didn't even need Colossi at all. It is funny because everything you say was already addressed by Day9 in the daily... | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On November 13 2010 02:36 Dystisis wrote: It is funny because everything you say was already addressed by Day9 in the daily... Yeah, but as you can read from my first post, he was wrong while addressing it. "DT rush didn't deal that much damage" isn't too convincing when before it the supplies are 45-45 and after they're 98-50. Or what do you think? On November 13 2010 02:33 ThorIsHere wrote: Yeah, but that wasn't the point. It was that Inka decided to get colossus, irrespective of whether they were necessary or not. Day9 was illustrating the difference between Inka getting colossus following the DT push versus rushing to colossus. He wasn't making any points about the viability of the strategy. Honestly, I don't think DT-into-colossus is a realistic, viable strategy. But as long as you can do something to buy yourself time, that is better than simply sitting in your base praying to hold on for the first 8 minutes. Yeah well, then he really shouldn't have downplayed the damage the DT rush did and should have analysed more objectively. Of course I understand his point, but this game didn't demonstrate it well at all. Unless the point of this daily was something like "Instead of 2gate Colossus, you can DT rush as well", in which case this does the job decently. But yeah, it should be pretty clear already why I disliked the daily. Bad game choice to support his idea about buying time for Colossus and the incorrect, non-objective analysis. Especially if he truly believed the DTs didn't do a lot of damage. | ||
|
gonkulator
10 Posts
| ||
|
escobari
Finland192 Posts
And obviously you shouldn't tech to colos after dt rush. For bigger army much faster: Archons baby. | ||
|
Ohdamn
Germany765 Posts
On November 13 2010 01:51 Shikyo wrote: The latest daily was really disappointing. Inka got way ahead with DTs and the game was over, just got dragged and Day9 way overanalyses it about army composition etc. when Inka could have made anything he wanted and still won. Inka had like double Fenix's harvesters ever since he failed to build turrets vs DTs, and the game would have been completely different. A really bad choice in my opinion to showcase "different colossus timings". Maybe every T doesn't get 3 turrets as a part of their standard build yet, but it'll be the standard in every single macro build after a while, so this kind of stuff is really inconsistant. He said things like "look at how safe that army seems!" When inka had 130 supply vs 80. Of course you'll feel safe when you're 50 supply ahead, but you shouldn't over-analyze it with unit composition. He'd most likely have looked even more safe with 5 Colossus and a few less Gateway units, to be honest. He addressed this in the daily but was wrong while addressing it... Pretty funny actually. As DTs enter, supplies are 45 vs 45, after the attack's done, supplies are about 65-37 for Inka with Inka having nearly 2x workers and Fenix's natural not properly mining for the longest time. This is when there's a lull and the Zealot and DT attack the debris. "They didn't do a lot of damage" right... Later on, after Inka loses his Zealot and DT at the expo with the next attack, Fenix is at 50 supply and Inka at 98 supply. He still keeps counting units Inka lost... maybe look at the game? It also was pretty funny how he only counted the units Inka lost but didn't note the units Fenix lost. So biased to support his point of view that he didn't even stay objective. And yeah Day[9] we all know you can get maxed in 16 mins pretty easily and Inka attacked at 17 minutes with only 130 supply so he had lost a lot of units, but his opponent lost so much more that it really doesn't matter if you compare it to a vacuum or something. You need to compare to the opponent. you, sir, obviously didn't understand what thhis daily was about i suggest you go back and watch it again | ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
1. It's ridiculous sounding in theory 2. It leads to some amazing and ridiculous games 3. It actually makes you think differently about the game. I've learned that 1. Aggressive expansion unpunished is still extremely dangerous 2. Greed = good. Eventually we had to start planning to kill our opponents expansions after we ran out of our own to take (we were in 2v2). We had to plan ahead of time to mobilize in order to expand at the correct time. Makes games a lot more dynamic. 3. Its hard as BALLS to FE as Protoss =( | ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
This is what I gleaned from half-paying attention. -> For some long term build orders (such as going for colossi), you are quite vulnerable to a timing attack before your ball of death is ready. -> Pressure can buy you time and keep your opponent in their base until you're up and running (InKa chooses to buy himself time to get colossi up by DT rushing, keeping Fenix in his base+burning scans+losing some scvs). -> Remember that pressure can be expensive (InKa lost ~20 units applying pressure and moved out much later than if he had skipped DT's). Come to think of it, the way I've phrased it is a concept I've seen a number of times before; I'm probably missing some subtleties). If your main beef with it was the choice of game to illustrate some of what he was talking about, that's reasonable. However, a fair bit of his analysis was hypothetical as far as counting units lost by InkA. I'm glad that Day[9]'s Dailies tend toward lessons on how to think like a gamer rather than simply examining specific build orders. | ||
|
Nienordir
98 Posts
On November 13 2010 02:57 gonkulator wrote: UNIDEN! I laugh so hard about that everytime. That guy is the most legendary player in the entire series of daily's. There should be a Uniden shirt. He isn't that bad, he actually showed some nice blink stalker micro on kulas (I think). You know the blink stalker micro with the watch tower that surprised Day9 at Dallas when it happend. You're wrong Day, you saw it on your Daily..Uniden did it first!  Of course that doesn't mean he invented it, but the point is you've seen it there weeks ago and you praised the player at Dallas (whos name I can't remember) instead of giving shout outs to one of your minions! Don't you feel even a bit guilty? Shame on you, he deserves an apology!!11^^ (I hope that's true..have to watch it again, but it's Uniden. He's the man he did it, no doubt.  )edit: Alright he blinked to the cliff at the gold instead of the nat, but he basically did it just into a different direction. =) Personally I liked ALLEEEEEEEN more, if his Spore Crawler would've burrowed in time and then killed the ghost before the nuke hits, he would've been a %$&&ing super hero. Alright, let's be fair Uniden would've been a super hero too if he had defended the pylon and won the game, but he's a evil protoss so I have to root for the zerg brother. I'm so sad that it didn't happen..it would've been the most epic move ever, the chat would've gone crazy and Blizz would've implemented an achievement for it and made it immortal. =D But instead Blizz sabotaged his creativity, his brilliance, his unmeasurable skill to come up with a move like that while the red dot is pointing at his little heart, by making the nuke timer faster than moving and reburrowing a spore crawler..*zerg tears* (;_;) | ||
|
Domokan
58 Posts
On November 13 2010 01:51 Shikyo wrote: The latest daily was really disappointing. Inka got way ahead with DTs and the game was over, just got dragged and Day9 way overanalyses it about army composition etc. when Inka could have made anything he wanted and still won. Inka had like double Fenix's harvesters ever since he failed to build turrets vs DTs, and the game would have been completely different. A really bad choice in my opinion to showcase "different colossus timings". Maybe every T doesn't get 3 turrets as a part of their standard build yet, but it'll be the standard in every single macro build after a while, so this kind of stuff is really inconsistant. He said things like "look at how safe that army seems!" When inka had 130 supply vs 80. Of course you'll feel safe when you're 50 supply ahead, but you shouldn't over-analyze it with unit composition. He'd most likely have looked even more safe with 5 Colossus and a few less Gateway units, to be honest. He addressed this in the daily but was wrong while addressing it... Pretty funny actually. As DTs enter, supplies are 45 vs 45, after the attack's done, supplies are about 65-37 for Inka with Inka having nearly 2x workers and Fenix's natural not properly mining for the longest time. This is when there's a lull and the Zealot and DT attack the debris. "They didn't do a lot of damage" right... Later on, after Inka loses his Zealot and DT at the expo with the next attack, Fenix is at 50 supply and Inka at 98 supply. He still keeps counting units Inka lost... maybe look at the game? It also was pretty funny how he only counted the units Inka lost but didn't note the units Fenix lost. So biased to support his point of view that he didn't even stay objective. And yeah Day[9] we all know you can get maxed in 16 mins pretty easily and Inka attacked at 17 minutes with only 130 supply so he had lost a lot of units, but his opponent lost so much more that it really doesn't matter if you compare it to a vacuum or something. You need to compare to the opponent. it seems your the one doing overanalyses go away bro. | ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
I still remember how much backlash Day9 got from his PvT macro style daily and we can clearly see many pros doing 1gate FE already | ||
|
AidanS
39 Posts
On November 13 2010 01:51 Shikyo wrote: The latest daily was really disappointing. Inka got way ahead with DTs and the game was over, just got dragged and Day9 way overanalyses it about army composition etc. when Inka could have made anything he wanted and still won. I was disappointed by the daily too. There was no need to get collossi because the terran player made some early mistakes then got too far behind from dts. P held the early pressure without using any DTs at all. Then he threw the DT dice and won. It felt lucky since he didn't know what is going on till the marauders hit, T fortunately didn't have conc shells, T fortunately had a weak push from having expanded and he got in with DT just after mules dropped. If T had turtled hard on his 2 expansions he'd be ahead, if T had not expanded and instead had a strong first attack it probably would have ended there or done massive damage. It felt like Ts expansion had created the perfect window of opportunity for P and P had hit it with blind luck. Could he have seen the gates, no robo, no sentrys and no expansion with his scan before the marauder attack and assumed something funky is up? It just didn't feel like a decent example game for what Day9 is trying to show even if I get what he is saying from his explaination. | ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
On November 13 2010 02:01 red_ice82 wrote: Yes, this question was asked about this shirt back on D9D#127, interesting story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxI0b1rNyAs&t=8m40s "Men can't go here, but the women can choose to make them come if they want to, but they by no means have to and are, in fact, in complete control at all times in the hypothetical situation represented on this t-shirt." Completely awesome. Now that I know the backstory I want the shirt even more. | ||
| ||
