|
On April 15 2011 23:36 AlBundy wrote:
As other have pointed, maps also play a big role when it comes to balance.
About map balance: weren't Zerg players begging for bigger maps, and safer expos? How come it didn't turn out how like they predicted? Terminus, Taldarim altar were supposed to be Zerg favored maps, weren't they?
So, was it a miscalculation or what?
This explains it really well
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191702
|
On April 16 2011 00:06 Stiver wrote:
You're wrong. WE do nothing but try different things.
No, no you really don't. Or at least top Zerg players don't (and then most other people don't either).
Here's a weird fact - a huge change in Fungal Growth mechanic came out less than a month ago, right? I lose track of time sometimes but I think it was fairly recent anyway.
Since that point no single Zerg played Infestor-heavy strategies consistently, nor have I seen builds and strategies tailored around Infestor play specifically, and let's not even talk about actual refinement.
But somehow every Zerg already knows that it's just "not good enough". In less than a month. Without ever truly exploring it in-depth.
So where is all this "trying"? Where is the evidence of genuine good players actually trying (and taking it seriously)?
It's exactly like the example MrCon named about Pool first vs 2rax. First they all decide that it's bad, and then some 2 months later when they become desperate enough and actually have to try something different and take it seriously, ONLY THEN it somehow turns out that it was never so bad after all.
|
On April 16 2011 00:38 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:06 Stiver wrote:
You're wrong. WE do nothing but try different things. No, no you really don't. Or at least top Zerg players don't (and then most other people don't either). Here's a weird fact - a huge change in Fungal Growth mechanic came out less than a month ago, right? I lose track of time sometimes but I think it was fairly recent anyway. Since that point no single Zerg played Infestor-heavy strategies consistently, nor have I seen builds and strategies tailored around Infestor play specifically, and let's not even talk about actual refinement. But somehow every Zerg already knows that it's just "not good enough". In less than a month. Without ever truly exploring it in-depth. So where is all this "trying"? Where is the evidence of genuine good players actually trying (and taking it seriously)? It's exactly like the example MrCon named about Pool first vs 2rax. First they all decide that it's bad, and then some 2 months later when they become desperate enough and actually have to try something different and take it seriously, ONLY THEN it somehow turns out that it was never so bad after all.
Yeah man, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you've actually ever watched a Pro zerg Stream/games you see Infestors used all the time. I call shenanigans on your comment.
|
On April 15 2011 09:48 Ultramus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 08:29 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I haven't tried to go beyond answering Mailing's question, though I'm sure I incidentally went off on some tangents that widened the scope a bit. As a reminder, here's his question: If spanish and vibe are "playing zerg correctly", why are they not beating top players?
My answer to that was that there's more to winning and losing than the general style of play. Maybe Spanishiwa isn't good enough to make the best style of play in the world work at the highest level. Even if the best player in the world 5 years from now came back from the future and gave him a summary of how zergs are playing, he still would not beat top players. Going by your basic brackets of skill, I'm sure you can see how if you told someone who is good enough to get out of an open bracket of MLG something like "in ZvP, get gas really late in the early game, with lots of queens and drones, but then get as much gas as you can in the mid game, use nydus a lot, and drop harass a lot, banelings, infestors, ultras in late game" then he wouldn't suddenly be able to win GSL with that knowledge. There is a ridiculously high amount of skill needed to execute at that level. And there's a ridiculous amount of focused practiced needed, with the right kind of analytical mind to turn vague concepts into refined builds and tactics, so that you've got practical knowledge on how to play it. In my door analogy, this would just be like knowing what door has the food, but still being unable to open the door. Or taking months to open the door.
Is it not obvious that if you "played Protoss correctly" and Jaedong totally fucked around and did the stupidest shit possible with Zerg, he would still win? The relevant judgment of skill that you are required to make here is if you told a person of Spanishiwa's skill level how to play Zerg correctly would he be one of the best Zerg players in the world (regularly beating top players). I think if you watched 20 of his games, you'd probably say no. If you were being generous, you'd say "I don't know." He'd have to be ridiculously impressive in order for you to confidently say "yes" but that's what Mailing requires. My arguments have just been explaining why it's very reasonable and likely for us to say "no" or "I don't know." Seriously cutting the bullshit, I doubt any top protoss wouldn't be ecstatic to go up against such a non-standard build.
I'm not a top level protoss, but I can tell you as someone who loves and has experience with tons of different strategy games that playing against someone who suddenly does something new that you have no idea how to read does make you slightly confident that your "standard" play should be safe. However, since you're in new territory, it's a bit nerve racking that you have no idea what to expect. I'm sure the first time Bisu did the build at a top level, his opponent felt pretty good up until he realized that he was dealing with something very powerful and had no experience with this form of pressure.
So yes, expect your opponent to be confident if you go for something "weird", but don't expect that to be reflective of the build's strengths. Really, feelings on your build are irrelevant unless they're reflective of lots of experience against your build. If your build is new, they're just reflective of your opponent blindly guessing that you've got nothing really powerful planned.
|
|
|
On April 15 2011 23:27 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 22:54 zeru wrote:On April 15 2011 22:36 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 19:43 zeru wrote:On April 15 2011 19:34 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 19:25 zeru wrote:I encourage every zerg to watch yestedays daily ( #286). The first time i heard about spanishiwa and his build i thought it was just some random sillyness which wouldn't work, but I was seriously impressed, seriously. It's extremely thought through. Dont tunnel vision anything out like I know some of you did for this sotg episode, keep the zerg rage out of your mind, stay open to it, listen and learn. And no, I'm not saying his opponents are godly omfg MC like players, but no doubt top 200, considering he's top 50 on US, we will of course have to see what happens when/if it reaches euro/korean zergs and they actually try it. This is getting old. One day we have everybody saying "zerg is not reactionnary enough, should tech switch more". The day after Day9 come saying "zerg play way too reactionnary" and everybody jump on the train. Then the day after, everybody is saying you are not playing agressiv enough, you must tear the death ball before it come into game, then Day come and say hey man just build a shitload of infestor with broodlord, then everybody jump on the train again. Most of the guy talking just don't watch IdrA: he is making broodlord infestor, he is almost always making infestors, he is switching tech, he is even using nydus a lot. He is one of the most, if not the most diverse zerg player I have ever seen. You don't know how the build works. All you do is cry about stuff you don't actually understand. Why are zerg players so emo and negative by default, its like the race attracts ragers. Feel free to stay tunnel visioned and angry, thats your problem. People like you are the ones who contribute nothing, don't actually think, and prevent this forum from being amazing. It's not about just building infestor, nydus, broodlord. It's WAY deeper and complex than that. If you don't try to learn, you won't learn. Actually I tried to mimic aquanda's ZvP and Spanishiwa's style as soon as they appeared, but with my level of play (3k5 master on EU) it is irrelevant. You seems pretty emo yourself crying about me crying, that's your problem, your so blind and happy to win games you should not that you come here to explain us why you are right and we are wrong. The only thing I have said is: most of the zerg try, and try a lot... Just look at how many ZvP there is outthere, between aquanda ling bling and mass expand style, Spanishiwa no gas bo... But most of the time, those build win because the opponent just don't know how to react to it, I'm pretty sure you can abuse Spanishiwa & aquanda's style way more than any consistent basic roach hydra style. Could you share some replays where you played spanishiwa style. From your previous posts you give the impression of not having a clue about how it actually works and is executed. Prove me wrong. Do you know there is a post on TL made about Spanishiwa's style with a lot of comment from Darkforce, and also a lesson by MrBitter with spanishiwa ? Are you implying I cannot just follow exactly the steps he made ? Come on man. And for the replays, I'm at work, and usually only keep the replay where I win, I'm that kind of guy. The only reason im asking for replays is because there is no reason the style shouldn't work for you, when it works perfectly for him since he is way higher ranked and I want to find out why it is that you think it can't work with your level of play.
Where did I say it did not work ? Aquanda's style also work wonder at my level of play, it's still irrelevant because my level of play is actually quite low. My opponents NEVER adapt to these style because they see it so few times. I just said that those style, especially Spanishiwa no gas, are here for the time being but will eventually disappear in favor of basic play because, if you know they are coming, I think you could heavily abuse them as P.
Still, this style doesn't change my point. The weakness of Z is in timing attacks / choice of the army composition against protoss end game army.
Heck I should not even talk with you, you just can't understand our problem has nothing to do with build orders.
To the one saying zergs are not trying, you are just clueless. The zerg community is all out in fact, Spanishiwa/aquanda are both zergs don't you know ? IdrA is actually going crazy since some times, mixing his armies, making roach ling baneling hydra infestor broodlord, switching every damn game. Dimaga going heavy infestor like a day after the patch release...
|
On April 16 2011 00:47 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:34 Stiver wrote:
"I saw the same Roach/Hydra Style since the beta (!). Very few Zergs played Mutalisks. I saw nothing else for like ever."
There is nothing else. Roach Hydra is the strongest/most effective composition we have to deal with Zealot Stalekr Sentry. Sorry, this is true/fact. Mutalisks aren't used becasue 1) Toss timing attacks all hit before Mutas come out, and Mutas can't really defend anyways agaisnt teh stalkers.
"Now i see slowly new styles develop. And i have huge Problems with Ling/Infestor. Never saw this style. Never in any progame.
Especially Infestors. Even players who teched on BLs didn't use Infestors. And now i have it nearly impossible to stop BL/Infestor.
"
First off Infestors are new, so your point is mute. Zergs are in the process already of trying out infestors. That was not my point. My point is this idea that you non-Zergs have that we don't try things. We do, and the result is the infestors being used. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
ALSO:
Well when Protoss stop blindly going robo, Infestors are going to look silly with Templars being used in compositions. I just fixed your ling infestor problem. That and Lings are terrible agaisnt protoss. Same with banelings. Apparently you've never heard of forcefields, and the fact you can't micro through them.
"So now answer me.
Why did i not see that? Why did i all Zergs get a big Roach/Hydra blob which died to every bigger Protoss blob? For 5 months?"
Because back when Protoss were still playing badly, and Zergs were palying well we could beat the Protoss because Zerg players are better than Protoss players. Now protoss realizes you don't really have to ever attack and get 200 and you win the game no matter what. Which is not a result of us not trying new thigns, it is a result of us trying everythign we could, and it all failing so we default to the only thing that has had any real success, despite how badly it actually does.
Your post is full with so many things that are wrong. Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false. Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false Terrible post. Full of lies and clueless statements you say are "facts".
Hey man, you know whats a great way of making yourself a credible person? to make claims without backing it up. Congrats you have no substance until you can put some backing to your outrageously wrong claims.
|
|
|
On April 16 2011 00:41 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:38 Talin wrote:On April 16 2011 00:06 Stiver wrote:
You're wrong. WE do nothing but try different things. No, no you really don't. Or at least top Zerg players don't (and then most other people don't either). Here's a weird fact - a huge change in Fungal Growth mechanic came out less than a month ago, right? I lose track of time sometimes but I think it was fairly recent anyway. Since that point no single Zerg played Infestor-heavy strategies consistently, nor have I seen builds and strategies tailored around Infestor play specifically, and let's not even talk about actual refinement. But somehow every Zerg already knows that it's just "not good enough". In less than a month. Without ever truly exploring it in-depth. So where is all this "trying"? Where is the evidence of genuine good players actually trying (and taking it seriously)? It's exactly like the example MrCon named about Pool first vs 2rax. First they all decide that it's bad, and then some 2 months later when they become desperate enough and actually have to try something different and take it seriously, ONLY THEN it somehow turns out that it was never so bad after all. Yeah man, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you've actually ever watched a Pro zerg Stream/games you see Infestors used all the time. I call shenanigans on your comment.
I know exactly what I'm talking about.
They USE Infestors in the sense that they're getting the UNIT more often and in slightly higher numbers, but that's all they do.
Incorporating more Infestors mid/late game in pretty much the exact same strategy and mindset they used before the Infestor change has got nothing to do with actually exploring new possibilities and strategies specifically tailored around Infestors.
That's not "trying" at all. That's more like "oh Fungal is pretty nice now, so I guess I'll get some more Infestors after I go Lair". -_-
And my original point is that even if they were trying, there's literally no way anyone would figure out the best strategies and timings for Infestor play in less than a month. It's just impossible. So nobody has the credibility to come out and say "well it's just not good enough".
|
On April 16 2011 00:50 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:47 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:34 Stiver wrote:
"I saw the same Roach/Hydra Style since the beta (!). Very few Zergs played Mutalisks. I saw nothing else for like ever."
There is nothing else. Roach Hydra is the strongest/most effective composition we have to deal with Zealot Stalekr Sentry. Sorry, this is true/fact. Mutalisks aren't used becasue 1) Toss timing attacks all hit before Mutas come out, and Mutas can't really defend anyways agaisnt teh stalkers.
"Now i see slowly new styles develop. And i have huge Problems with Ling/Infestor. Never saw this style. Never in any progame.
Especially Infestors. Even players who teched on BLs didn't use Infestors. And now i have it nearly impossible to stop BL/Infestor.
"
First off Infestors are new, so your point is mute. Zergs are in the process already of trying out infestors. That was not my point. My point is this idea that you non-Zergs have that we don't try things. We do, and the result is the infestors being used. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
ALSO:
Well when Protoss stop blindly going robo, Infestors are going to look silly with Templars being used in compositions. I just fixed your ling infestor problem. That and Lings are terrible agaisnt protoss. Same with banelings. Apparently you've never heard of forcefields, and the fact you can't micro through them.
"So now answer me.
Why did i not see that? Why did i all Zergs get a big Roach/Hydra blob which died to every bigger Protoss blob? For 5 months?"
Because back when Protoss were still playing badly, and Zergs were palying well we could beat the Protoss because Zerg players are better than Protoss players. Now protoss realizes you don't really have to ever attack and get 200 and you win the game no matter what. Which is not a result of us not trying new thigns, it is a result of us trying everythign we could, and it all failing so we default to the only thing that has had any real success, despite how badly it actually does.
Your post is full with so many things that are wrong. Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false. Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false Terrible post. Full of lies and clueless statements you say are "facts". Hey man, you know whats a great way of making yourself a credible person? to make claims without backing it up. Congrats you have no substance until you can put some backing to your outrageously wrong claims.
actually his statements are all true except maybe the ling baneling thing, which can really only be truly effective against top protoss if the banelings are dropped or catch the toss in the open. templar do not shut down infestor completely, there is a tricky spellcaster battle there which yes, can go badly for the zerg if they don't play it better than the protoss. the other ones i dont really think need explanation i mean its pretty obvious lol
|
On April 16 2011 00:41 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:38 Talin wrote:On April 16 2011 00:06 Stiver wrote:
You're wrong. WE do nothing but try different things. No, no you really don't. Or at least top Zerg players don't (and then most other people don't either). Here's a weird fact - a huge change in Fungal Growth mechanic came out less than a month ago, right? I lose track of time sometimes but I think it was fairly recent anyway. Since that point no single Zerg played Infestor-heavy strategies consistently, nor have I seen builds and strategies tailored around Infestor play specifically, and let's not even talk about actual refinement. But somehow every Zerg already knows that it's just "not good enough". In less than a month. Without ever truly exploring it in-depth. So where is all this "trying"? Where is the evidence of genuine good players actually trying (and taking it seriously)? It's exactly like the example MrCon named about Pool first vs 2rax. First they all decide that it's bad, and then some 2 months later when they become desperate enough and actually have to try something different and take it seriously, ONLY THEN it somehow turns out that it was never so bad after all. Yeah man, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you've actually ever watched a Pro zerg Stream/games you see Infestors used all the time. I call shenanigans on your comment.
There's a difference between using infestors and building a strategy around getting infestors. Most of the infestor use I've seen on streams look like they're just adding a few infestors to see if anything changes. There's nothing wrong with the style of experimentation, and in fact it's the type of experimentation I prefer with unit changes.
However, the post you're responding to says "Infestor-heavy strategies consistently" and "strategies tailored around Infestor play". There's a difference between having an infestor around and structuring your whole comp around the infestor.
|
On April 16 2011 00:52 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:50 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:47 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:34 Stiver wrote:
"I saw the same Roach/Hydra Style since the beta (!). Very few Zergs played Mutalisks. I saw nothing else for like ever."
There is nothing else. Roach Hydra is the strongest/most effective composition we have to deal with Zealot Stalekr Sentry. Sorry, this is true/fact. Mutalisks aren't used becasue 1) Toss timing attacks all hit before Mutas come out, and Mutas can't really defend anyways agaisnt teh stalkers.
"Now i see slowly new styles develop. And i have huge Problems with Ling/Infestor. Never saw this style. Never in any progame.
Especially Infestors. Even players who teched on BLs didn't use Infestors. And now i have it nearly impossible to stop BL/Infestor.
"
First off Infestors are new, so your point is mute. Zergs are in the process already of trying out infestors. That was not my point. My point is this idea that you non-Zergs have that we don't try things. We do, and the result is the infestors being used. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
ALSO:
Well when Protoss stop blindly going robo, Infestors are going to look silly with Templars being used in compositions. I just fixed your ling infestor problem. That and Lings are terrible agaisnt protoss. Same with banelings. Apparently you've never heard of forcefields, and the fact you can't micro through them.
"So now answer me.
Why did i not see that? Why did i all Zergs get a big Roach/Hydra blob which died to every bigger Protoss blob? For 5 months?"
Because back when Protoss were still playing badly, and Zergs were palying well we could beat the Protoss because Zerg players are better than Protoss players. Now protoss realizes you don't really have to ever attack and get 200 and you win the game no matter what. Which is not a result of us not trying new thigns, it is a result of us trying everythign we could, and it all failing so we default to the only thing that has had any real success, despite how badly it actually does.
Your post is full with so many things that are wrong. Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false. Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false Terrible post. Full of lies and clueless statements you say are "facts". Hey man, you know whats a great way of making yourself a credible person? to make claims without backing it up. Congrats you have no substance until you can put some backing to your outrageously wrong claims. You do realize you did the same thing, right.
Uh, no. You go throguh a list and say I'm wrong with no explanation. Burden of proof is on you, not me.
|
On April 16 2011 00:55 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:41 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:38 Talin wrote:On April 16 2011 00:06 Stiver wrote:
You're wrong. WE do nothing but try different things. No, no you really don't. Or at least top Zerg players don't (and then most other people don't either). Here's a weird fact - a huge change in Fungal Growth mechanic came out less than a month ago, right? I lose track of time sometimes but I think it was fairly recent anyway. Since that point no single Zerg played Infestor-heavy strategies consistently, nor have I seen builds and strategies tailored around Infestor play specifically, and let's not even talk about actual refinement. But somehow every Zerg already knows that it's just "not good enough". In less than a month. Without ever truly exploring it in-depth. So where is all this "trying"? Where is the evidence of genuine good players actually trying (and taking it seriously)? It's exactly like the example MrCon named about Pool first vs 2rax. First they all decide that it's bad, and then some 2 months later when they become desperate enough and actually have to try something different and take it seriously, ONLY THEN it somehow turns out that it was never so bad after all. Yeah man, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you've actually ever watched a Pro zerg Stream/games you see Infestors used all the time. I call shenanigans on your comment. There's a difference between using infestors and building a strategy around getting infestors. Most of the infestor use I've seen on streams look like they're just adding a few infestors to see if anything changes. There's nothing wrong with the style of experimentation, and in fact it's the type of experimentation I prefer with unit changes. However, the post you're responding to says "Infestor-heavy strategies consistently" and "strategies tailored around Infestor play". There's a difference between having an infestor around and structuring your whole comp around the infestor.
No. I and all my Zerg teammates were using Infestor only builds in ZvT before the patch (which was killed by the patch, thanks blizzard). We've transfered those builds to ZvP after patch. I jump on a lot of Zerg streams and see Infestor based builds. Similar, or the same to the ones I've used.
In other words, you've no idea what you be talking about.
|
Dimaga's not being a whiner, he just had some awesome strats/tactics in the HDWT
|
On April 16 2011 00:53 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:41 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:38 Talin wrote:On April 16 2011 00:06 Stiver wrote:
You're wrong. WE do nothing but try different things. No, no you really don't. Or at least top Zerg players don't (and then most other people don't either). Here's a weird fact - a huge change in Fungal Growth mechanic came out less than a month ago, right? I lose track of time sometimes but I think it was fairly recent anyway. Since that point no single Zerg played Infestor-heavy strategies consistently, nor have I seen builds and strategies tailored around Infestor play specifically, and let's not even talk about actual refinement. But somehow every Zerg already knows that it's just "not good enough". In less than a month. Without ever truly exploring it in-depth. So where is all this "trying"? Where is the evidence of genuine good players actually trying (and taking it seriously)? It's exactly like the example MrCon named about Pool first vs 2rax. First they all decide that it's bad, and then some 2 months later when they become desperate enough and actually have to try something different and take it seriously, ONLY THEN it somehow turns out that it was never so bad after all. Yeah man, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you've actually ever watched a Pro zerg Stream/games you see Infestors used all the time. I call shenanigans on your comment. I know exactly what I'm talking about. They USE Infestors in the sense that they're getting the UNIT more often and in slightly higher numbers, but that's all they do. Incorporating more Infestors mid/late game in pretty much the exact same strategy and mindset they used before the Infestor change has got nothing to do with actually exploring new possibilities and strategies specifically tailored around Infestors. That's not "trying" at all. That's more like "oh Fungal is pretty nice now, so I guess I'll get some more Infestors after I go Lair". -_- And my original point is that even if they were trying, there's literally no way anyone would figure out the best strategies and timings for Infestor play in less than a month. It's just impossible. So nobody has the credibility to come out and say "well it's just not good enough".
No you are completly wrong. You just don't know what you are talking about, so stop talking about it?
Infestor Broodlord is like the basic end game composition at the moment. There are many infestor heavy build, see dimaga for exemple against MVP like the day AFTER the patch ?
Most of the time, you can see IdrA going for roach / hydra (roach only against Z) then switch to infestor heavy in almost every match up EXCEPT ZvT where he goes muta ling bling THEN infestors...
|
On April 16 2011 00:38 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:06 Stiver wrote:
You're wrong. WE do nothing but try different things. No, no you really don't. Or at least top Zerg players don't (and then most other people don't either). Here's a weird fact - a huge change in Fungal Growth mechanic came out less than a month ago, right? I lose track of time sometimes but I think it was fairly recent anyway. Since that point no single Zerg played Infestor-heavy strategies consistently, nor have I seen builds and strategies tailored around Infestor play specifically, and let's not even talk about actual refinement. But somehow every Zerg already knows that it's just "not good enough". In less than a month. Without ever truly exploring it in-depth. So where is all this "trying"? Where is the evidence of genuine good players actually trying (and taking it seriously)? It's exactly like the example MrCon named about Pool first vs 2rax. First they all decide that it's bad, and then some 2 months later when they become desperate enough and actually have to try something different and take it seriously, ONLY THEN it somehow turns out that it was never so bad after all.
You don't understand there's a difference between the games someone plays at a tournament and those at practice. we see the games Zergs play at tournaments. Unless you're TLO no1 experiments at a tournament. You come prepared with a few general strategies and compositions and stick to those. In practice you then start experimenting and stuff, but no Zerg in the right mind will improvise with infestors during his MLG run. All this "trying" is in the countless practice games you don't see. Until a Zerg has a ton of practice and experience with an infestor build he's worked out and streamlined he won't be using it in a tournament any time soon. We may see ZvP infestors employed regularly in competitive tournaments, but thinking we're gonna see them this soon is silly. I mean idra has said he's constantly trying new things out, but theyre not working. If he's gonna keep experimenting hes gonna do so at home when he mass games, not in a tournament, that would be stupid.
|
On April 16 2011 00:56 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:52 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:50 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:47 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:34 Stiver wrote:
"I saw the same Roach/Hydra Style since the beta (!). Very few Zergs played Mutalisks. I saw nothing else for like ever."
There is nothing else. Roach Hydra is the strongest/most effective composition we have to deal with Zealot Stalekr Sentry. Sorry, this is true/fact. Mutalisks aren't used becasue 1) Toss timing attacks all hit before Mutas come out, and Mutas can't really defend anyways agaisnt teh stalkers.
"Now i see slowly new styles develop. And i have huge Problems with Ling/Infestor. Never saw this style. Never in any progame.
Especially Infestors. Even players who teched on BLs didn't use Infestors. And now i have it nearly impossible to stop BL/Infestor.
"
First off Infestors are new, so your point is mute. Zergs are in the process already of trying out infestors. That was not my point. My point is this idea that you non-Zergs have that we don't try things. We do, and the result is the infestors being used. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
ALSO:
Well when Protoss stop blindly going robo, Infestors are going to look silly with Templars being used in compositions. I just fixed your ling infestor problem. That and Lings are terrible agaisnt protoss. Same with banelings. Apparently you've never heard of forcefields, and the fact you can't micro through them.
"So now answer me.
Why did i not see that? Why did i all Zergs get a big Roach/Hydra blob which died to every bigger Protoss blob? For 5 months?"
Because back when Protoss were still playing badly, and Zergs were palying well we could beat the Protoss because Zerg players are better than Protoss players. Now protoss realizes you don't really have to ever attack and get 200 and you win the game no matter what. Which is not a result of us not trying new thigns, it is a result of us trying everythign we could, and it all failing so we default to the only thing that has had any real success, despite how badly it actually does.
Your post is full with so many things that are wrong. Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false. Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false Terrible post. Full of lies and clueless statements you say are "facts". Hey man, you know whats a great way of making yourself a credible person? to make claims without backing it up. Congrats you have no substance until you can put some backing to your outrageously wrong claims. You do realize you did the same thing, right. Uh, no. You go throguh a list and say I'm wrong with no explanation. Burden of proof is on you, not me.
Except that you made the original statements. The burden of proof there is on you. It doesn't work logically that if I say
"Zerg has all the advantages, including scouting advantages."
And then you respond with:
"I don't think so, how are overlords/overseers better than observers?"
That I can respond with:
"Nope, you have to prove that observers are better or my statement holds."
If you want to say something, prove it. If you say it without showing why, and then someone says they think you're wrong, that doesn't impart work on them, it imparts the work you skipped to make the original statement.
|
On April 16 2011 01:03 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:56 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:52 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:50 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:47 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:34 Stiver wrote:
"I saw the same Roach/Hydra Style since the beta (!). Very few Zergs played Mutalisks. I saw nothing else for like ever."
There is nothing else. Roach Hydra is the strongest/most effective composition we have to deal with Zealot Stalekr Sentry. Sorry, this is true/fact. Mutalisks aren't used becasue 1) Toss timing attacks all hit before Mutas come out, and Mutas can't really defend anyways agaisnt teh stalkers.
"Now i see slowly new styles develop. And i have huge Problems with Ling/Infestor. Never saw this style. Never in any progame.
Especially Infestors. Even players who teched on BLs didn't use Infestors. And now i have it nearly impossible to stop BL/Infestor.
"
First off Infestors are new, so your point is mute. Zergs are in the process already of trying out infestors. That was not my point. My point is this idea that you non-Zergs have that we don't try things. We do, and the result is the infestors being used. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
ALSO:
Well when Protoss stop blindly going robo, Infestors are going to look silly with Templars being used in compositions. I just fixed your ling infestor problem. That and Lings are terrible agaisnt protoss. Same with banelings. Apparently you've never heard of forcefields, and the fact you can't micro through them.
"So now answer me.
Why did i not see that? Why did i all Zergs get a big Roach/Hydra blob which died to every bigger Protoss blob? For 5 months?"
Because back when Protoss were still playing badly, and Zergs were palying well we could beat the Protoss because Zerg players are better than Protoss players. Now protoss realizes you don't really have to ever attack and get 200 and you win the game no matter what. Which is not a result of us not trying new thigns, it is a result of us trying everythign we could, and it all failing so we default to the only thing that has had any real success, despite how badly it actually does.
Your post is full with so many things that are wrong. Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false. Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false Terrible post. Full of lies and clueless statements you say are "facts". Hey man, you know whats a great way of making yourself a credible person? to make claims without backing it up. Congrats you have no substance until you can put some backing to your outrageously wrong claims. You do realize you did the same thing, right. Uh, no. You go throguh a list and say I'm wrong with no explanation. Burden of proof is on you, not me. Except that you made the original statements. The burden of proof there is on you. It doesn't work logically that if I say "Zerg has all the advantages, including scouting advantages." And then you respond with: "I don't think so, how are overlords/overseers better than observers?"
Gonna stop you there. There is a difference between saying "you're wrong because..." and saying "you're wrong." If you don't give me a reason, you challenging me doesn't mean anything to me. I post the conventional wisdom, you need to post the reasons that challenege that.
|
Why would a zerg try new builds in a game environment, or even while streaming? New strategies are often created by people thinking to themselves, refining the build order by themselves, and then testing it on ladder or in a practice house. That we haven't seen almost any unique and creative strategies seems to indicate that these builds have proven to be failures in practice games.
People are severely underestimating the resolve to win of the SC2 progamer regardless of race. When highly technical, difficult new strategies evolved in broodwar (muta micro, sair reaver, mid-game wraiths TvZ), the best players devoted enormous amounts of time to learning and refining the new style. All the players needed was a germ of an idea and a modicum of real-world results.
Players like TSL_Rain and oGsMC gladly risk scorn for a 51% or greater chance to win with a build that fans hate. If such a creative strategy existed that gave zerg a 51% chance to win, hoards of TLO-style fans, and praise from their zerg peers, don't you think they would use it? Don't you think the best zergs have been trying to create or borrow such a strategy for months now?
|
On April 16 2011 01:01 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 00:38 Talin wrote:On April 16 2011 00:06 Stiver wrote:
You're wrong. WE do nothing but try different things. No, no you really don't. Or at least top Zerg players don't (and then most other people don't either). Here's a weird fact - a huge change in Fungal Growth mechanic came out less than a month ago, right? I lose track of time sometimes but I think it was fairly recent anyway. Since that point no single Zerg played Infestor-heavy strategies consistently, nor have I seen builds and strategies tailored around Infestor play specifically, and let's not even talk about actual refinement. But somehow every Zerg already knows that it's just "not good enough". In less than a month. Without ever truly exploring it in-depth. So where is all this "trying"? Where is the evidence of genuine good players actually trying (and taking it seriously)? It's exactly like the example MrCon named about Pool first vs 2rax. First they all decide that it's bad, and then some 2 months later when they become desperate enough and actually have to try something different and take it seriously, ONLY THEN it somehow turns out that it was never so bad after all. You don't understand there's a difference between the games someone plays at a tournament and those at practice. we see the games Zergs play at tournaments. Unless you're TLO no1 experiments at a tournament. You come prepared with a few general strategies and compositions and stick to those. In practice you then start experimenting and stuff, but no Zerg in the right mind will improvise with infestors during his MLG run. All this "trying" is in the countless practice games you don't see. Until a Zerg has a ton of practice and experience with an infestor build he's worked out and streamlined he won't be using it in a tournament any time soon. We may see ZvP infestors employed regularly in competitive tournaments, but thinking we're gonna see them this soon is silly. I mean idra has said he's constantly trying new things out, but theyre not working. If he's gonna keep experimenting hes gonna do so at home when he mass games, not in a tournament, that would be stupid.
As reasonable as your argument is, if you are right then the best Zerg players will have very little time to actually explore all the alternative possibilities anyway - since they also have to practice the current "standards" for tournaments, and there are major tournament games basically every week these days.
So given those assumptions are true, how can anyone come out and say that the "Infestor play is bad / impossible / not viable", when it's obvious nobody has had (or took) the time to really figure it out, especially the professional players?
And this is basically what people are saying - that Roach/Hydra is the best way to deal with Protoss ("even though it's terrible") and that nothing else is "viable".
And to be honest, I watched Idra stream for about an hour on two occasions recently, and I haven't really seen anything special when it comes to experimenting. Again, it might have to do with what you said (and I agree with), but then why would anyone go in public and talk about how broken the game is when clearly he didn't have enough time to figure it out in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
