EPTAfter looking at some of imba.adolf replays, I noticed that 9 out of 10 times, the two sides made approximately the same number of units and had more or less perfect macro YET he still manages to get a good 70-80% win ratio by always making two pronged attacks where as the enemy only blobbed their units. In many fights, he lost the bigger fight but won the smaller often more important ones like a sneaky 3 reaper attack on the main base while the enemy was entirely preoccupied with fighting in the middle of the map.
Garimto blogs about Starcraft II - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MeruFM
United States167 Posts
After looking at some of imba.adolf replays, I noticed that 9 out of 10 times, the two sides made approximately the same number of units and had more or less perfect macro YET he still manages to get a good 70-80% win ratio by always making two pronged attacks where as the enemy only blobbed their units. In many fights, he lost the bigger fight but won the smaller often more important ones like a sneaky 3 reaper attack on the main base while the enemy was entirely preoccupied with fighting in the middle of the map. | ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
| ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
On March 06 2010 13:40 Failsafe wrote: You're semi-missing Nazgul's point, and it's a very important concern that he brings up. I know what he means I just think it is wrong. With that kind of reasoning, if everyone watches Kasparov chess games ("replays"), then everyone will be at the highest levels of play? Obviously false. And note that chess is 100% mind while sc2 is still a lot about macro and micro. The 1a blob users will get slaughtered by those that use micro to form concaves, retreat, position different units, etc. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
| ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
| ||
|
Lumi
United States1616 Posts
| ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
| ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
| ||
|
Gaspa79
Argentina5 Posts
On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote: From what I've seen so far, I think this might be a difficult game for beginners. It's not a game like BW where you can win just by just blindly making a lot of units. My god... Win by just blindly making a lot of units? lol | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
On March 06 2010 21:07 Rekrul wrote: hahaha. Garimto likes to get down?well atleast he's being useful rather than making the side wall of my room shake with moaning sounds keeping me awake | ||
Chill
Calgary25993 Posts
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote: the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol Seriously. And my experience is once someone has a bigger army than you, it's way harder to come back through tactics. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
Some of his comments come off like one of those newbies who make snide comments about SC because you have to be fast and a strong multitasker. I doubt he's going to be a top player in SC2 and will no doubt find flaws in the game to explain why when he inevitably gets passed up by people once builds and strategies are refined to a point where mechanics are just as important again. He's innovative and creative but I think it's fair to say he's far from a complete player | ||
|
Sadist
United States7326 Posts
On March 07 2010 02:40 floor exercise wrote: It sounds like Garimto still clearly has a chip on his shoulder about getting passed up by players with good mechanics in SC. A game that requires speed/technique and thinking/creativity is obviously better than one that requires just one of those, or heavily favors one over the other. Some of his comments come off like one of those newbies who make snide comments about SC because you have to be fast and a strong multitasker. I doubt he's going to be a top player in SC2 and will no doubt find flaws in the game to explain why when he inevitably gets passed up by people once builds and strategies are refined to a point where mechanics are just as important again. He's innovative and creative but I think it's fair to say he's far from a complete player part of this is because of the fucking horrible AI. Why do you think people need to practice 12-16 hrs a day of bw? Its to overcome the shit pathing and AI. Things dont build on you, tons of crappy stuff happens all the time. Units running into each other then going backwards. Its frustrating to just thinking about it  | ||
|
zee
201 Posts
On March 06 2010 21:07 Rekrul wrote: well atleast he's being useful rather than making the side wall of my room shake with moaning sounds keeping me awake o.o ? | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
On March 07 2010 02:50 Sadist wrote: part of this is because of the fucking horrible AI. Why do you think people need to practice 12-16 hrs a day of bw? Its to overcome the shit pathing and AI. Things dont build on you, tons of crappy stuff happens all the time. Units running into each other then going backwards. Its frustrating to just thinking about it SC was never perfect I just take exception with him talking as if SC2 is superior on the basis that he can compete in it (so far) I like SC2 and am enjoying it but the ladder is full of people who play and excel at every RTS game when it's new and then no longer compete/give up when the competition becomes more fierce. It's a little too much self-congratulation by Garimto at this point. | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
It still very good for Terran to play defensively, because of good defensive stuctures, the ability of the SCV's to repair Buildings/certain Units and Tanks of course. Also, having 2 Orbital Command Centres very early will give you a huge advantage in the long run. The Problem against Zerg is when Zerg takes an early expansion on Maps where you can't really go get a FE as a Terran. It's also very hard to apply early aggression against a FEing Zerg. I've tried getting up an offensive Bunker and it doesn't work at all and if you wan't to play 1base against a 2base Zerg, you basically need to have perfect timing and also a bit of luck. It's not impossible to win against a FEing Zerg with just 1 base, but I feel like it's harder than necessary. But as written above - that's mostly a Map-related problem. Against Protoss, the Problems are also Map-related. Protoss get's so many benefits from "complex" Maps because they can build an offensive Pylon and rush you and you have to have a SCV running around searching for Pylons on spots it actually easier to get to for your opponent. What I do is just get up several Depots all over the Map, which is a bit annoying if they can easily be kicked be your opponent. It's also much easier for the Protoss to play aggressive, so if you're not able to make a Fast-Exe, you have to sit around your base anyways defending against possible DT's, hidden-pylon-rushes or stuff like that. One thing about PvT that's not Map-related but kinda annoys me is the Colossus: They just melt Bio within seconds, but Immortals are very good against Tanks, then, you have to watch out against Void-Ray-rushes, DT's, warp-in's etc. so it's so hard to get the right Unit-Composition up. FastExing against P mostly works and you can hold off rushes if you scout offensive pylons and scan/scout their Unit-composition. But even after your Exe more than paid off, he can just rush you with collossus/Immortals/Zealots which completely negate good Building-Placement and melt the units you basically need if you want to have a chance against early rushes or some kind of cheese. It's like NightElves in WC3. Saying they're imba wouldn't be quite accurate, it's just that they have so many BO's they can choose from, but the opponent has to counter them in very specific ways. P has just game-control right away and you basically have to guess what BO they're gonna choose right from the start. Say you're FEing: - Against Hidden-Pylons you have to get up a Bunker, so you basically always have to get up a Bunker, because you can't scan/scout the whole map and be sure that the P isn't rushing. I mean - even a Pylon that's not too near your base can make the reinforcement-distance for P so short, that one huge advantage when playing defensively (faster reinforcements) is negated. - when you see a Robo, Protoss can choose from several Units, that are countered by very different Unit's, that require a different BO: You want to get up Turrets against Prisms and Observers. Bio against Immortals and more Mech against Collossus. Also, you should get a rather fast Starport with Addon for detection against DT's. - You basically need an as fast as possible Ghost, because you need the EMP, which require A LOT of Gas, which is hard to get when FE'ing or when you wanna have some Marauders or any kind of mech/air-Units. It's just that hard-counter-system which really works against Terran in this Matchup and some incredibly bad Maps... But I still haven't used Thor that much against P, so maybe he works against Immo+Zealots+Collo. | ||
|
Paperkat
United Kingdom47 Posts
On March 07 2010 03:22 kickinhead wrote: I play Terran-only since ~3 days and I have about 120 Games with about 60% wins and the only thing annoying are the Maps. I get a Fast-Exe directly after 1 Rax on the Maps where it's possible (therefore, I don't like the Maps Desert Oasis, Kulas Ravine and Scrap Station, because they make FEing almost impossible if the opponent doesn't get a FE himself) and play defensively. It still very good for Terran to play defensively, because of good defensive stuctures, the ability of the SCV's to repair Buildings/certain Units and Tanks of course. Also, having 2 Orbital Command Centres very early will give you a huge advantage in the long run. The Problem against Zerg is when Zerg takes an early expansion on Maps where you can't really go get a FE as a Terran. It's also very hard to apply early aggression against a FEing Zerg. I've tried getting up an offensive Bunker and it doesn't work at all and if you wan't to play 1base against a 2base Zerg, you basically need to have perfect timing and also a bit of luck. It's not impossible to win against a FEing Zerg with just 1 base, but I feel like it's harder than necessary. But as written above - that's mostly a Map-related problem. Against Protoss, the Problems are also Map-related. Protoss get's so many benefits from "complex" Maps because they can build an offensive Pylon and rush you and you have to have a SCV running around searching for Pylons on spots it actually easier to get to for your opponent. What I do is just get up several Depots all over the Map, which is a bit annoying if they can easily be kicked be your opponent. It's also much easier for the Protoss to play aggressive, so if you're not able to make a Fast-Exe, you have to sit around your base anyways defending against possible DT's, hidden-pylon-rushes or stuff like that. One thing about PvT that's not Map-related but kinda annoys me is the Colossus: They just melt Bio within seconds, but Immortals are very good against Tanks, then, you have to watch out against Void-Ray-rushes, DT's, warp-in's etc. so it's so hard to get the right Unit-Composition up. FastExing against P mostly works and you can hold off rushes if you scout offensive pylons and scan/scout their Unit-composition. But even after your Exe more than paid off, he can just rush you with collossus/Immortals/Zealots which completely negate good Building-Placement and melt the units you basically need if you want to have a chance against early rushes or some kind of cheese. It's like NightElves in WC3. Saying they're imba wouldn't be quite accurate, it's just that they have so many BO's they can choose from, but the opponent has to counter them in very specific ways. P has just game-control right away and you basically have to guess what BO they're gonna choose right from the start. Say you're FEing: - Against Hidden-Pylons you have to get up a Bunker, so you basically always have to get up a Bunker, because you can't scan/scout the whole map and be sure that the P isn't rushing. I mean - even a Pylon that's not too near your base can make the reinforcement-distance for P so short, that one huge advantage when playing defensively (faster reinforcements) is negated. - when you see a Robo, Protoss can choose from several Units, that are countered by very different Unit's, that require a different BO: You want to get up Turrets against Prisms and Observers. Bio against Immortals and more Mech against Collossus. Also, you should get a rather fast Starport with Addon for detection against DT's. - You basically need an as fast as possible Ghost, because you need the EMP, which require A LOT of Gas, which is hard to get when FE'ing or when you wanna have some Marauders or any kind of mech/air-Units. It's just that hard-counter-system which really works against Terran in this Matchup and some incredibly bad Maps... But I still haven't used Thor that much against P, so maybe he works against Immo+Zealots+Collo. i think the hard counter system is pretty aids for terran too especially considering that a hard counter system is gonna favour the race that has observers and can see everything youre doing, but if you do things right you really get a nice rewarding win ! | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1675 Posts
On March 06 2010 06:45 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: You would be supporting their argument with that. This is exactly what everyone says. The difficulty of the game is reduced from macro/micro/mind to just mind, which evens the playing field and lowers the games longevity due to more people being able to perform at the highest levels and thus speeding up the development of the strategic game. You got a point... What shock me a bit in Garimto say. It's this bad relation of sc2 is harder coze sc1 you can win by just making a lot of unit. A game is as hard as the opponent you're playing against right? I mean tetris is very simple game, well play it on internet against korean, it's a new level of difficulty. While it's true that at sc2, you should better have the RIGHT unit instead of more, if you remove all the micro and macro aspect, it is more mind game. I think it is just on commercial purpose, blizzard wants to get all w3 players it's obvious. You play w3, are you really gonna switch to sc2 if ever they didn't make it simpler to handle? Of course not...Because the gap between sc and w3 players would be too huge, while now, everybody almost starts ground zero. I think this is the only reason, you need a game easy friendly, so you'll make more money. This is what give us technology in this field present day. I see sc2 as a new game for w3 players really, they are all gonna be very happy, but for us it's nowhere we expected. It has been the same with quake 3, this generation online-game is over, you'll never experience games such as bw and q3 ever again, we have to accept it, or you agree to this Disneyland new age or you should better do something else  as me, i'm not interested, i'm fine with bw i'll stick to it until something better comes up even if it means never. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 06 2010 23:42 wintergt wrote: I know what he means I just think it is wrong. With that kind of reasoning, if everyone watches Kasparov chess games ("replays"), then everyone will be at the highest levels of play? Obviously false. And note that chess is 100% mind while sc2 is still a lot about macro and micro. The 1a blob users will get slaughtered by those that use micro to form concaves, retreat, position different units, etc. I guess a lot of it comes down to what we want to define as the mental aspect of the game. I think what is being argued is simply this: For a strategy to be effective, it has to have a kernel of creativity, and then it must be refined to a razor's edge through repetition and analysis. Without replays, this process happens in very small communities, such as clans or professional teams, or even at the individual level. A player can develop his own rogue strategy and without replays it is difficult or impossible for any other player to peer inside of the "black box" to see exactly how the trick is performed. So each player must either develop the same trick, or different tricks to deal with this trick. The player who has the best bag of tricks has a huge advantage. Certainly this is not the only way to get an advantage but it is one very good way. When replays are readily available, the mechanics are no longer hidden. Any player can view a replay and see not only how and why they lost, but they can even watch the reposted replays of strategies they have never even encountered personally, and either adopt them or adapt to them based on that information. A good strategy is still a good strategy, and a good strategy is still an advantage, but one need not be a great strategist to employ another person's strategy. So the game becomes less about who can develop the best strategies and more about who can best execute a good strategy, regardless of the source. At least, I think that is what is being argued. | ||
| ||
