|
On December 09 2010 12:11 Defacer wrote:
Alright then, broadening the topic. Who is the best macro Protoss? Or do they all suck balls because no one is chronoboosting effectively?
I'd have to go with HuK, based on a game I watched earlier today where he got WAY behind in a mirror match-up, but managed to pull out a win by chronoing out probes, upgrades, and Colossi faster than his opponent.
But I'd love to hear some other nominations.
|
hey love what you guys are doing with SoTG keep it up  ^_^
|
On December 09 2010 12:32 Crichton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 12:11 Defacer wrote:
Alright then, broadening the topic. Who is the best macro Protoss? Or do they all suck balls because no one is chronoboosting effectively? I'd have to go with HuK, based on a game I watched earlier today where he got WAY behind in a mirror match-up, but managed to pull out a win by chronoing out probes, upgrades, and Colossi faster than his opponent. But I'd love to hear some other nominations.
Nony? I seem to remember this epic game against PainUser in MLG where he barely got beat by Pain's unit composition.
To be honest ... I'm having trouble thinking of the last good mid/late protoss game I've seen, where the quality of someone's macro might seem obvious ... or even a good game where protoss went three bases.
Goddamn GSL ruining my brain.
|
It's hard to find a macro toss because they kind of all have to be. No toss is gonna win early game.
|
Aw man, no cast? I wanted to hear Artosis and stuff be super happy about the patch reverts.
|
|
|
On December 09 2010 09:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more boring... there was a CB discussion -________-
bleh 
We talked about this because you talked about this (but without elaborating). Don't you have any comment to do about this ? (besides "it's boring lol" I mean) And perhaps it is boring but it's still the first interresting discussion in like 200 pages of trolling and flaming...
Anyway, thanx Tyller for sharing your thoughts 
edit : ok, so this topic is for flame only, this is so disapointing at so much levels.
|
|
|
is there a chance to get tasteless on the show sometime?
it would be nice to here something from him besides GSL casts.
|
On December 10 2010 00:38 Hirnfrost wrote:is there a chance to get tasteless on the show sometime? it would be nice to here something from him besides GSL casts.
You just blew my mind. Tasteless is such an awesome guy and has done so much for BW and now Sc2. Just hearing from him would be epic
|
On December 09 2010 17:15 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 09:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more boring... there was a CB discussion -________- bleh We talked about this because you talked about this (but without elaborating). Don't you have any comment to do about this ? (besides "it's boring lol" I mean) And perhaps it is boring but it's still the first interresting discussion in like 200 pages of trolling and flaming... Anyway, thanx Tyller for sharing your thoughts edit : ok, so this topic is for flame only, this is so disapointing at so much levels.
would love to see this one closed(or renamed to "troll sotg here!") and a new clean one reopened . the amount stupidity hurts me so bad evrytime im lookin for a alternative dl link.
|
This whole extended series argument is continuously very poorly represented; I expected InControl to be a lot more incisive. Perhaps my understanding is flawed, but I don't think so.
The best legitimate argument against it that I'm aware of is rather simple:
There's two possibilities in an MLG Final: either the player either has an advantage (say 2-1) or it's a neutral field (0-0).
Now, say they haven't met before, 0-0: this completely violates the whole idea behind double elimination, because the player who has a loss is on an equal playing field as the player who does not, simply by the pure chance that they have not met yet. The player with a loss is being rewarded for losing to someone other than whoever advanced. This is simply wrong.
The entire premise behind a bracket is the transitive property: if Player A beats Player B and Player B beat Player C, we assume that Player A beat Player C. MLG violates this by only using this logic in the finals if the players have personally met before. This is obviously flawed and I don't understand why people are having such a hard time pointing out the inconsistency.
|
Tasteless + Day[9] on the podcast together = <3
|
11589 Posts
On December 10 2010 01:12 FaZ- wrote:
This whole extended series argument is continuously very poorly represented; I expected InControl to be a lot more incisive. Perhaps my understanding is flawed, but I don't think so.
The best legitimate argument against it that I'm aware of is rather simple:
There's two possibilities in an MLG Final: either the player either has an advantage (say 2-1) or it's a neutral field (0-0).
Now, say they haven't met before, 0-0: this completely violates the whole idea behind double elimination, because the player who has a loss is on an equal playing field as the player who does not, simply by the pure chance that they have not met yet. The player with a loss is being rewarded for losing to someone other than whoever advanced. This is simply wrong.
The entire premise behind a bracket is the transitive property: if Player A beats Player B and Player B beat Player C, we assume that Player A beat Player C. MLG violates this by only using this logic in the finals if the players have personally met before. This is obviously flawed and I don't understand why people are having such a hard time pointing out the inconsistency.
Actually, the person who has a loss in MLG would have to win 2 Bo3 against the other, while the person without a loss only has to win one. Refer to the finals of MLG DC where IdrA only had to beat SeleCT in the first Bo3 to win the crown, while SeleCT would have had to win that one, and the next just to be champ.
|
EDIT: FUUU person above me beat me to it by 2 seconds!
|
Hate to beat on this topic, but can someone clarify this for me? Does extended series rule mean that the disadvantaged player has to win two actual Bo3s or does it mean what the name itself suggests that the when the two players meet again, their previous score (e.g 2:1) is maintained and it's as if the series is "extended" to a Bo7 with the advantaged player being up 2-1 in a Bo7 series? I'm hearing both interpretations, which vastly changes the arguments for or against the rule.
edit : meant Bo7, not Bo4
|
On December 10 2010 01:37 djcube wrote:
Hate to beat on this topic, but can someone clarify this for me? Does extended series rule mean that the disadvantaged player has to win two actual Bo3s or does it mean what the name itself suggests that the when the two players meet again, their previous score (e.g 2:1) is maintained and it's as if the series is "extended" to a Bo4 with the advantaged player being up 2-1 in a Bo7 series? I'm hearing both interpretations, which vastly changes the arguments for or against the rule.
The loser has to win 2 BO3's to win.
It starts 0-0 for first bo3. If the person at the advantage wins 2 games, series is over. If the disadvantaged person wins 2 games, it goes into another 0-0 BO3 to determine the final winner.
|
On December 10 2010 01:12 FaZ- wrote:
This whole extended series argument is continuously very poorly represented; I expected InControl to be a lot more incisive. Perhaps my understanding is flawed, but I don't think so.
The best legitimate argument against it that I'm aware of is rather simple:
The argument against is just simply that in double elim you should be eliminated if you lose two Bo3 (or Bo-whatever depending on the format). With extended series you can sometimes get a 'get out of jail free'-card if you face someone you knocked down to the loser's bracket.
Basically, if you're both in the loser's bracket then you've both lost a Bo3 to get there so you should be treated equally.
|
Site is down: http://www.mlgpro.com/ci/brackets/procircuit/10/dc/sc2/open/winners ... =(
I appreciate the correction. The transitive property still remains violated, however. I just need a new concise example. Maybe an 8 player bracket... I'll get to work. -.-
Also: if the extended series rule comes into play in the true finals, do they play a Bo7 (winner up 2-1) and then another Best of 3? If not, there's also an inconsistency between how these are handled in the true finals and the Losers' bracket.
EDIT: Lol just PM me. Sorry -.-
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
FUCK extended series is like a virus.
STOP talking about it please
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
