|
I highly encourage all Zergs to watch Spanishiwa's stream. He will also be on the Day 9 Daily tonight.
There's still some aspects of his overall strategies that feel 'iffy', similar to Catz or Kiwikaki. But seriously, he's probably one of the most naturally gifted tactical players out there right now. He wins in situations that most Zergs consider 'unwinnable' right now.
Last night, he broke a line of 8 or 9 seige tanks with maybe 18 ling and a handful of banelings, by executing a great magic box spilt. In another game, he took out a three-base toss, despite being contained on two bases, by sending burrowed infestors to the tosses mineral lines and delaying his deathball. His games are full of these WTF moments.
|
|
|
I don't think Idra has much to do with it at all. Idra used to complain about imbalance in Brood War as well (and he wasn't the only one), but very few people took any of it seriously.
The thing is, Starcraft 2 has a massive influx of new players, many of which come from various gaming backgrounds where complaining about imbalance (or anything really) is considered to be the most normal thing in the world and an acceptable way to vent frustrations.
Instead of focusing on self-improvement and solving problems in the game, we've had people crying rivers of imba tears since release so much that the entire community is literally drowning in the flood now. You can't read any game-related thread on TL these days without reading a snide balance remark every 3 posts and a 2-page long "debate" (and I use the term loosely) about balance every 10 pages.
It's just too much.
|
Question: where does JP stream from, and who's that guy who's always sitting behind him in the background?
|
On April 14 2011 23:31 nick1689 wrote:
Question: where does JP stream from, and who's that guy who's always sitting behind him in the background?
Texas and it's his brother.
|
broodwar talk was my favorite part of this weeks show.
|
On April 14 2011 23:35 Xinder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 23:31 nick1689 wrote:
Question: where does JP stream from, and who's that guy who's always sitting behind him in the background? Texas and it's his brother.
I found it hilarious when JP's brother had his feet up against the wall, couldn't bring myself to stop laughing for some reason.
|
On April 14 2011 23:15 Defacer wrote:
I highly encourage all Zergs to watch Spanishiwa's stream. He will also be on the Day 9 Daily tonight.
There's still some aspects of his overall strategies that feel 'iffy', similar to Catz or Kiwikaki. But seriously, he's probably one of the most naturally gifted tactical players out there right now. He wins in situations that most Zergs consider 'unwinnable' right now.
Last night, he broke a line of 8 or 9 seige tanks with maybe 18 ling and a handful of banelings, by executing a great magic box spilt. In another game, he took out a three-base toss, despite being contained on two bases, by sending burrowed infestors to the tosses mineral lines and delaying his deathball. His games are full of these WTF moments.
I am trying to but he is never streaming when I check 
|
On April 14 2011 19:24 zeru wrote:
The similarities drawn from brood war in this cast were perfect to compare what's going on, with getting urself in unwinnable scenarios, dropping vs zerg, etc.
ye but sadly lot if it has changed.
the pvt example of tyler would work vastly different in sc2. you cant get a super high eco lead by taking the map (see the mining efficiency thread), there arent the lategame power units like arbiters and carriers , the maps are vastly different etc.
or for incontrols statement about the flanking and countering Z which ofcourse is true but also changed alot with how zerg(and maps) in sc2 is. its not the swarmy race it once was , has a much less scary lategame and gets much less out of the expanding character of the race cause of the mining thing.
much still applies but also alot of it cant be compared because of some of the sc2 design decisions (imho flaws)
what i liked was incontrols statement about how we saw the game and balance back then. this is absolutely true. but its hard to keep that mindset when we know the game isnt balanced ,can and will change plus how easy(since mechanics have often very little influence) and random sc2 can be.
|
On April 14 2011 23:07 Essentia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 22:00 Azrael22 wrote:On April 14 2011 19:24 zeru wrote:
Why do zergs think they have they have the right cry about ZvP anyway, terrans have lower win rate against protoss than zerg in tournaments recently and you don't see them being little cry babies. Is there some side effect that you get by playing zerg which makes you think you should qq about imbalance everywhere? Man up.
The similarities drawn from brood war in this cast were perfect to compare what's going on, with getting urself in unwinnable scenarios, dropping vs zerg, etc. Yes, and the side effect is called Idra. I honestly think his balance qq has been one of the worst things for the mentality of the casual gamers. They hear him qq and think it must be true. I think it is safe to say that all 3 races still need to do a LOT of experimentation before this game is figured out. I play protoss, and while I agree protoss units don't generally do well vs other races in small numbers, warp prism harass has huge potential. Recently we're starting to see more heavy gateway styles against both terran and zerg, when until recently almost every build featured robo units. I feel as though stargate play has a lot of potential. One thing I've been curious about is incorporating carriers. I think a stargate focused play (read VR) while getting pretty early air upgrades could allow for a transition to carriers once you secure a 3rd. I feel like we might have seen a style like this come about, but before it did we saw the colo VR build that spawned all this imba deathball talk. There were several protoss around that time that focused on air and transitioned into colo later, which is why I said we might have seen that style come about. Yeah that's the biggest problem. Balance only becomes a deciding factor at the HIGHEST level of gaming. However, a gold level player who looks up to the top pros and sees them complain "OP OP" then they all start thinking it themselves in their own games when in reality they are probably losing because of mechanics or poor game decisions since they are not anywhere close to high level. When top pros complain about balance it causes a chain reaction down the food chain of gamers that even low level gamers think they are losing their games due to balance, but they are not.
This is exactly the reason why i can´t take any balance argument from people on the forum(not known pro´s) seriously.People think way to much of themselves in terms of "understanding the game" .I´m sorry just because you are in masters does not mean you are very knowledgeable of the game. To compare Day9 once said that if you were A- in Iccup meant that you don´t have a good grasp of the game. And i´m sorry to tell you this but none of the people in masters play with the mechanics of an A-. In fact many Pro´s still suck at this game.
Just to give you an example (and i don´t mean to bash Adelscott) but how is it that Adelscott can win with 1k in the bank afte like 10 inutes into the game? even someone like Tyler still has mineralspikes during fights.
|
On April 15 2011 00:25 Clamev wrote:
To compare Day9 once said that if you were A- in Iccup meant that you don´t have a good grasp of the game. And i´m sorry to tell you this but none of the people in masters play with the mechanics of an A-. In fact many Pro´s still suck at this game.
This is very true. Out of the current foreign SC2 progamers, I don't think there were many that were in the As on Iccup just before beta.
Any balance observations made before the game is played at a sufficiently high level (mechanically) are even more vague and unreliable than balance observations generally are.
We're still at a point in SC2 where something as simple as the advance of Marine vs Baneling micro can completely change the game around. Correct ways to macro in SC2 may not even be discovered yet, and many players even on pro level barely control their armies in the late game at all.
|
On April 15 2011 00:33 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 00:25 Clamev wrote:
To compare Day9 once said that if you were A- in Iccup meant that you don´t have a good grasp of the game. And i´m sorry to tell you this but none of the people in masters play with the mechanics of an A-. In fact many Pro´s still suck at this game. This is very true. Out of the current foreign SC2 progamers, I don't think there were many that were in the As on Iccup just before beta. Any balance observations made before the game is played at a sufficiently high level (mechanically) are even more vague and unreliable than balance observations generally are. We're still at a point in SC2 where something as simple as the advance of Marine vs Baneling micro can completely change the game around. Correct ways to macro in SC2 may not even be discovered yet, and many players even on pro level barely control their armies in the late game at all.
mechanics are way way way less important in sc2 then in broodwar. you cant even compare it. thats also one of the reason why consistency in sc2 is quite low.
and very few pros "suck at the game" cause of mechanics. its just that mechanics (outside of multitasking) matter very little so people get lazy . look at all the players that used to have evry control group used all the time in bw but now just 1a their ball. many could do it different, it just doesnt matter and can even be bad in sc2. and another thing is a ton of the "micro/control" in sc2 is very onesided(see fungal,forcefields,blink etc). so often people cant even do anything then aclick and hope the enemy doesnt play good / doesnt have enough.
if pros "suck at the game" then just because the game will constantly evolve and change (including patches). ofcourse to later standarts todays play will be quite bad. thats not a question ,justlook at how Protoss played till ~ december. but unlike in bw the game is very volatile and lot of stuff just doesnt work because the fights and often even games are 90% decided by unit comps alone.
|
People just decided that mechanics don't matter so much when they realized there were such things as MBS, smart casting and the like. Just because people (including a lot of pro gamers) fell into that comfort zone and discovered some primitive strategies that "work" (at the moment) doesn't necessarily make it an absolute truth in the long run.
If overall mechanics didn't matter, slow Banelings would still be the perfect counter to Marines. In fact, when you look at somebody like MVP you can tell that the idea that you can't achieve mechanical superiority over your opponent isn't really true.
|
On April 15 2011 00:25 Clamev wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 23:07 Essentia wrote:On April 14 2011 22:00 Azrael22 wrote:On April 14 2011 19:24 zeru wrote:
Why do zergs think they have they have the right cry about ZvP anyway, terrans have lower win rate against protoss than zerg in tournaments recently and you don't see them being little cry babies. Is there some side effect that you get by playing zerg which makes you think you should qq about imbalance everywhere? Man up.
The similarities drawn from brood war in this cast were perfect to compare what's going on, with getting urself in unwinnable scenarios, dropping vs zerg, etc. Yes, and the side effect is called Idra. I honestly think his balance qq has been one of the worst things for the mentality of the casual gamers. They hear him qq and think it must be true. I think it is safe to say that all 3 races still need to do a LOT of experimentation before this game is figured out. I play protoss, and while I agree protoss units don't generally do well vs other races in small numbers, warp prism harass has huge potential. Recently we're starting to see more heavy gateway styles against both terran and zerg, when until recently almost every build featured robo units. I feel as though stargate play has a lot of potential. One thing I've been curious about is incorporating carriers. I think a stargate focused play (read VR) while getting pretty early air upgrades could allow for a transition to carriers once you secure a 3rd. I feel like we might have seen a style like this come about, but before it did we saw the colo VR build that spawned all this imba deathball talk. There were several protoss around that time that focused on air and transitioned into colo later, which is why I said we might have seen that style come about. Yeah that's the biggest problem. Balance only becomes a deciding factor at the HIGHEST level of gaming. However, a gold level player who looks up to the top pros and sees them complain "OP OP" then they all start thinking it themselves in their own games when in reality they are probably losing because of mechanics or poor game decisions since they are not anywhere close to high level. When top pros complain about balance it causes a chain reaction down the food chain of gamers that even low level gamers think they are losing their games due to balance, but they are not. This is exactly the reason why i can´t take any balance argument from people on the forum(not known pro´s) seriously.People think way to much of themselves in terms of "understanding the game" .I´m sorry just because you are in masters does not mean you are very knowledgeable of the game. To compare Day9 once said that if you were A- in Iccup meant that you don´t have a good grasp of the game. And i´m sorry to tell you this but none of the people in masters play with the mechanics of an A-. In fact many Pro´s still suck at this game. Just to give you an example (and i don´t mean to bash Adelscott) but how is it that Adelscott can win with 1k in the bank afte like 10 inutes into the game? even someone like Tyler still has mineralspikes during fights.
Its not like unit stats change at every level. I mean there's always something to improve on, and if zerg is inherently weak it means that at every level, when you play some1 equally as skilled as you, you're at a disadvantage and dont have 50 / 50 odds to win, which is unfair. 1 supply roaches were clearly broken, it just gave Zerg too strong of a midgame. Sure some1 with like C- mechanics can lose and then have plenty of things to improve on but it doesnt change the fact that the imbalance of 1 supply roaches clearly put the other guy at favor and made the person who lost have to go out of his way and fight an uphill battle to some1 he should have been matched evenly against
|
On April 14 2011 23:15 Defacer wrote:
I highly encourage all Zergs to watch Spanishiwa's stream. He will also be on the Day 9 Daily tonight.
There's still some aspects of his overall strategies that feel 'iffy', similar to Catz or Kiwikaki. But seriously, he's probably one of the most naturally gifted tactical players out there right now. He wins in situations that most Zergs consider 'unwinnable' right now.
Last night, he broke a line of 8 or 9 seige tanks with maybe 18 ling and a handful of banelings, by executing a great magic box spilt. In another game, he took out a three-base toss, despite being contained on two bases, by sending burrowed infestors to the tosses mineral lines and delaying his deathball. His games are full of these WTF moments.
Somehow, I understand IdrA's reaction with like everybody on the scene trying to telling the zerg how to play.
Just ask Spanishiwa about balance, you think that because you saw him one time killing a bunch of tank with a handful of zergling he has the gold ticket for zerg's play ?
Can I remind you that Catz, one of the most inventiv zerg, has already said that protoss is too good in this very forum, and has never gone as far as IdrA in tournaments.
I want to see what Spanishiwa do in a big tournament like MLG, I'm pretty sure that, as good as he is, he will never go far with in infestor play and such, because one game is good, the problem with that kind of play is consistency. Like CatZ going for 200/200 muta, and every protoss saying: HEY THAT S THE COUNTER TO PROTOSS DEATH BALL... and then CatZ himself going in and saying: hello that was one game where I had the opportunity to go 200/200 because the protoss just did not scout, despite having the best scout tools in the game.
|
On April 15 2011 01:00 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 00:25 Clamev wrote:On April 14 2011 23:07 Essentia wrote:On April 14 2011 22:00 Azrael22 wrote:On April 14 2011 19:24 zeru wrote:
Why do zergs think they have they have the right cry about ZvP anyway, terrans have lower win rate against protoss than zerg in tournaments recently and you don't see them being little cry babies. Is there some side effect that you get by playing zerg which makes you think you should qq about imbalance everywhere? Man up.
The similarities drawn from brood war in this cast were perfect to compare what's going on, with getting urself in unwinnable scenarios, dropping vs zerg, etc. Yes, and the side effect is called Idra. I honestly think his balance qq has been one of the worst things for the mentality of the casual gamers. They hear him qq and think it must be true. I think it is safe to say that all 3 races still need to do a LOT of experimentation before this game is figured out. I play protoss, and while I agree protoss units don't generally do well vs other races in small numbers, warp prism harass has huge potential. Recently we're starting to see more heavy gateway styles against both terran and zerg, when until recently almost every build featured robo units. I feel as though stargate play has a lot of potential. One thing I've been curious about is incorporating carriers. I think a stargate focused play (read VR) while getting pretty early air upgrades could allow for a transition to carriers once you secure a 3rd. I feel like we might have seen a style like this come about, but before it did we saw the colo VR build that spawned all this imba deathball talk. There were several protoss around that time that focused on air and transitioned into colo later, which is why I said we might have seen that style come about. Yeah that's the biggest problem. Balance only becomes a deciding factor at the HIGHEST level of gaming. However, a gold level player who looks up to the top pros and sees them complain "OP OP" then they all start thinking it themselves in their own games when in reality they are probably losing because of mechanics or poor game decisions since they are not anywhere close to high level. When top pros complain about balance it causes a chain reaction down the food chain of gamers that even low level gamers think they are losing their games due to balance, but they are not. This is exactly the reason why i can´t take any balance argument from people on the forum(not known pro´s) seriously.People think way to much of themselves in terms of "understanding the game" .I´m sorry just because you are in masters does not mean you are very knowledgeable of the game. To compare Day9 once said that if you were A- in Iccup meant that you don´t have a good grasp of the game. And i´m sorry to tell you this but none of the people in masters play with the mechanics of an A-. In fact many Pro´s still suck at this game. Just to give you an example (and i don´t mean to bash Adelscott) but how is it that Adelscott can win with 1k in the bank afte like 10 inutes into the game? even someone like Tyler still has mineralspikes during fights. Its not like unit stats change at every level. I mean there's always something to improve on, and if zerg is inherently weak it means that at every level, when you play some1 equally as skilled as you, you're at a disadvantage and dont have 50 / 50 odds to win, which is unfair. 1 supply roaches were clearly broken, it just gave Zerg too strong of a midgame. Sure some1 with like C- mechanics can lose and then have plenty of things to improve on but it doesnt change the fact that the imbalance of 1 supply roaches clearly put the other guy at favor and made the person who lost have to go out of his way and fight an uphill battle to some1 he should have been matched evenly against
Try winning a Tvp in Broowar.
Balance can be extremely shifted at lower levels without having any affect on top level play.
|
|
|
The way 1 food 2 armor Roach with sick regeneration upgrades was imbalanced was purely mathematical though. You could make a conclusive evidence that a unit with such attributes was imbalanced relative to other comparable units just by looking at the numbers.
There's nothing similar in SC2 today. You can't even pinpoint where the exact imbalance in PvZ is. It's more like "oh it's this whole Deathball thing", "we can't scout", "forcefields are cutting our army in half" and "we only make Roaches because everything else is expensive and risky".
All of these statements are really vague and there's no real evidence or even a reason to believe that they can't be solved in the game eventually.
|
On April 15 2011 01:00 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 00:25 Clamev wrote:On April 14 2011 23:07 Essentia wrote:On April 14 2011 22:00 Azrael22 wrote:On April 14 2011 19:24 zeru wrote:
Why do zergs think they have they have the right cry about ZvP anyway, terrans have lower win rate against protoss than zerg in tournaments recently and you don't see them being little cry babies. Is there some side effect that you get by playing zerg which makes you think you should qq about imbalance everywhere? Man up.
The similarities drawn from brood war in this cast were perfect to compare what's going on, with getting urself in unwinnable scenarios, dropping vs zerg, etc. Yes, and the side effect is called Idra. I honestly think his balance qq has been one of the worst things for the mentality of the casual gamers. They hear him qq and think it must be true. I think it is safe to say that all 3 races still need to do a LOT of experimentation before this game is figured out. I play protoss, and while I agree protoss units don't generally do well vs other races in small numbers, warp prism harass has huge potential. Recently we're starting to see more heavy gateway styles against both terran and zerg, when until recently almost every build featured robo units. I feel as though stargate play has a lot of potential. One thing I've been curious about is incorporating carriers. I think a stargate focused play (read VR) while getting pretty early air upgrades could allow for a transition to carriers once you secure a 3rd. I feel like we might have seen a style like this come about, but before it did we saw the colo VR build that spawned all this imba deathball talk. There were several protoss around that time that focused on air and transitioned into colo later, which is why I said we might have seen that style come about. Yeah that's the biggest problem. Balance only becomes a deciding factor at the HIGHEST level of gaming. However, a gold level player who looks up to the top pros and sees them complain "OP OP" then they all start thinking it themselves in their own games when in reality they are probably losing because of mechanics or poor game decisions since they are not anywhere close to high level. When top pros complain about balance it causes a chain reaction down the food chain of gamers that even low level gamers think they are losing their games due to balance, but they are not. This is exactly the reason why i can´t take any balance argument from people on the forum(not known pro´s) seriously.People think way to much of themselves in terms of "understanding the game" .I´m sorry just because you are in masters does not mean you are very knowledgeable of the game. To compare Day9 once said that if you were A- in Iccup meant that you don´t have a good grasp of the game. And i´m sorry to tell you this but none of the people in masters play with the mechanics of an A-. In fact many Pro´s still suck at this game. Just to give you an example (and i don´t mean to bash Adelscott) but how is it that Adelscott can win with 1k in the bank afte like 10 inutes into the game? even someone like Tyler still has mineralspikes during fights. Its not like unit stats change at every level. I mean there's always something to improve on, and if zerg is inherently weak it means that at every level, when you play some1 equally as skilled as you, you're at a disadvantage and dont have 50 / 50 odds to win, which is unfair. 1 supply roaches were clearly broken, it just gave Zerg too strong of a midgame. Sure some1 with like C- mechanics can lose and then have plenty of things to improve on but it doesnt change the fact that the imbalance of 1 supply roaches clearly put the other guy at favor and made the person who lost have to go out of his way and fight an uphill battle to some1 he should have been matched evenly against
true. balance applies evrywhere. still you should only really look at the top of the playerbase to really talk about it since at lower levels the huge mistakes have way way bigger impact on the game.
also there are differences which only apply on certain levels. look at very basic marauder vs gateway micro or proper forcefielding. both wont happen in bronze so its way weaker down there. while at the top level the fight will look entirely different cause of proper unit use
also wanna say that c- mechanics are easily master lvl in sc2. ive met so many TERRIBLE players in masters that could never even stay above D- on pgt.
|
On April 15 2011 01:06 Clamev wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 01:00 loveeholicce wrote:On April 15 2011 00:25 Clamev wrote:On April 14 2011 23:07 Essentia wrote:On April 14 2011 22:00 Azrael22 wrote:On April 14 2011 19:24 zeru wrote:
Why do zergs think they have they have the right cry about ZvP anyway, terrans have lower win rate against protoss than zerg in tournaments recently and you don't see them being little cry babies. Is there some side effect that you get by playing zerg which makes you think you should qq about imbalance everywhere? Man up.
The similarities drawn from brood war in this cast were perfect to compare what's going on, with getting urself in unwinnable scenarios, dropping vs zerg, etc. Yes, and the side effect is called Idra. I honestly think his balance qq has been one of the worst things for the mentality of the casual gamers. They hear him qq and think it must be true. I think it is safe to say that all 3 races still need to do a LOT of experimentation before this game is figured out. I play protoss, and while I agree protoss units don't generally do well vs other races in small numbers, warp prism harass has huge potential. Recently we're starting to see more heavy gateway styles against both terran and zerg, when until recently almost every build featured robo units. I feel as though stargate play has a lot of potential. One thing I've been curious about is incorporating carriers. I think a stargate focused play (read VR) while getting pretty early air upgrades could allow for a transition to carriers once you secure a 3rd. I feel like we might have seen a style like this come about, but before it did we saw the colo VR build that spawned all this imba deathball talk. There were several protoss around that time that focused on air and transitioned into colo later, which is why I said we might have seen that style come about. Yeah that's the biggest problem. Balance only becomes a deciding factor at the HIGHEST level of gaming. However, a gold level player who looks up to the top pros and sees them complain "OP OP" then they all start thinking it themselves in their own games when in reality they are probably losing because of mechanics or poor game decisions since they are not anywhere close to high level. When top pros complain about balance it causes a chain reaction down the food chain of gamers that even low level gamers think they are losing their games due to balance, but they are not. This is exactly the reason why i can´t take any balance argument from people on the forum(not known pro´s) seriously.People think way to much of themselves in terms of "understanding the game" .I´m sorry just because you are in masters does not mean you are very knowledgeable of the game. To compare Day9 once said that if you were A- in Iccup meant that you don´t have a good grasp of the game. And i´m sorry to tell you this but none of the people in masters play with the mechanics of an A-. In fact many Pro´s still suck at this game. Just to give you an example (and i don´t mean to bash Adelscott) but how is it that Adelscott can win with 1k in the bank afte like 10 inutes into the game? even someone like Tyler still has mineralspikes during fights. Its not like unit stats change at every level. I mean there's always something to improve on, and if zerg is inherently weak it means that at every level, when you play some1 equally as skilled as you, you're at a disadvantage and dont have 50 / 50 odds to win, which is unfair. 1 supply roaches were clearly broken, it just gave Zerg too strong of a midgame. Sure some1 with like C- mechanics can lose and then have plenty of things to improve on but it doesnt change the fact that the imbalance of 1 supply roaches clearly put the other guy at favor and made the person who lost have to go out of his way and fight an uphill battle to some1 he should have been matched evenly against Try winning a Tvp in Broowar. Balance can be extremely shifted at lower levels without having any affect on top level play.
And why ?
Because of mechanics, that was maybe the same in ZvT in SC2, where marine micro and muta / tank spread can have a big impact. I'm pretty sure, a lot of low level just used get demolished by banelings in the beginning, until they saw marineking splitting his marine and tried to mimic him.
But it's just not the case in SC2's ZvP, not with Zerg's arsenal of units (we have no micro intensiv units like Tanks or defiler, and don't mention infestor lol). At some level (3k5+ masters) mechanics is pretty on par and solid.
The big problem in my point of view is splitting, it's too hard to flank and split in SC2 because of the architecture of most maps, not to mention FF. That's one room that should be crucial for zerg but stay almost useless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
