|
On May 05 2011 05:16 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 05:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 05 2011 05:08 B-Wong wrote:On May 05 2011 05:04 trNimitz wrote:
Day9 is not a pro player, he's a commentator, unlike for Idra there's no reason for him to try and come up with ideas for Zerg. Nevermind Idra never even made a clear argument, he was just stating his thoughts on the game without anything actually supporting it. You can't just say "OMG I can't scout his base because of marines so I lose!"
The sad thing is Idra is so into this 'zerg is UP' thing I don't think he'll ever be able to get out of it, it's rather hard to accept you're wrong after you thought you were right for so long.
Oh and btw, from what I've heard (never played BW), idra was B-level in iCCup while day9 was A. Says it all. IdrA was a B-Teamer in Korea. On a professional team. Woops? Still, Day9 was one of the very few A-level NA players from what I've heard (followed BW but not iCCup) and played Zerg; that's why you constantly hear him say "well how is this any different from SC1 Zerg" when talking with IdrA. Given his tournament results I think he might have done even better if he had gone to Korea, like IdrA and Tyler did. But he decided to go to college instead. Lol IdrA was A level. Not B. Definitely.
Okey I'll give it to you straight since not alot of ppl are from BW anymore. Day9 Was an A player on PGTour another iccup like server. When iccup came about Day9 kinda stoped playing competivly. Iccup is said to be harder than pgtour so you really cant compare the two. On Iccup Idra was an A+ Player Which was incredibly good. When idra went to korea he was in the progaming houses B-Team. A-team was the top of the top of korean pros( Sangho, Mvp Bisu Stork Jaedong Flash Firebathero ect.).
Sry to say this But idra was defiently better than Day9 skill wise for the latter part of BW.
But that doesent mean that what idra says is right and what day9 says is wrong. No offense to Idra but hes said some retarded stuff in BW
|
On May 05 2011 06:11 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 05:04 Saechiis wrote:
he's quick to defend himself by saying SeleCt and KiWiKaKi suck? In my opinion SeleCT is one of the top 3 Terran in the world right now.
Whilst this point is rather offtopic, I think most would agree that MVP/MKP are the top 2 terrans. I'm really amazed that anyone who follows the korean scene as well as the foreigner scene would rate SeleCT higher than Nada, MMA, Bomber etc.
Although I would agree that he is probably the best foreign terran if you're counting him as a foreigner.
|
On May 05 2011 06:18 sureshot_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 06:16 Mordiford wrote:On May 05 2011 06:15 sureshot_ wrote:On May 05 2011 06:02 Soap wrote:I think no one brought this up in the cast out of respect for Tyler, but IdrA says he and ret are the only zergs winning tournaments because they are supposed to, out of their experience from BW. Tyler was his major rival, now plays the ez race, and he isn't winning shit. Case closed. Zerg don't have many good players. This game is less than an year old and someone managed to switch from terran and become top 5 zerg in the world sans Korea, there are new players in the rise, I have to concur that this balance discussion is just silly and leads to nothing but Blizzard going back and forth with the game under "pro players" blessings. See how BW pro players solve "imbalances": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217470. Just less humorously, perhaps. kekekeke Wait, how exactly is that case closed? lol. You found one example of a good player who plays an easy race and loses. Great? Now find an example of a noob zerg who wins tournaments and has very little experience. The point you made is hardly relevant. Also I really dislike the comments being made that a balance discussion is "silly," considering, after all, the discussion is for improving the game. We don't dictate what decisions Blizzard makes, we simply give opinions and propose ideas. Statistically speaking Zerg IS the weakest race as of right now. The only real argument I see against that point is that Zerg is the least played race out of the three. If that's the source of the problem then that's the issue which needs to be addressed by Blizzard. What statistics? Is it statistically significant? The charts I looked at put every race within a couple of percent of each other in the foreign scene, it was a fair sample size. Please present your statistics to show me why Zerg is statistically the weakest race. I'm kind of curious, just want to know. Zerg vs Protoss Since 2011 Match win ratio: 38.6% Set win ratio: 40.6 Total games: 96 Terran vs Zerg Since 2011 Match win Ratio: 55.6% Set Win Ratio: 53.2% Total games played: 156 http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2416194479This is just for the GSL. And the point was brought up by Idra in last night's podcast and it wasn't refuted by anyone.
TvZ: 23-13 (63.9%)]
ZvP: 24-13 (64.9%)
PvT: 14-9 (60.9%)
This just for the last OSL. Should I challenge the consensus that BW is incredibly balanced?
|
On May 05 2011 06:19 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 06:07 Mordiford wrote:On May 05 2011 06:02 Soap wrote:I think no one brought this up in the cast out of respect for Tyler, but IdrA says he and ret are the only zergs winning tournaments because they are supposed to, out of their experience from BW. Tyler was his major rival, now plays the ez race, and he isn't winning shit. Case closed. Zerg don't have many good players. This game is less than an year old and someone managed to switch from terran and become top 5 zerg in the world sans Korea, there are new players in the rise, I have to concur that this balance discussion is just silly and leads to nothing but Blizzard going back and forth with the game under "pro players" blessings. See how BW pro players solve "imbalances": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217470. Just less humorously, perhaps. kekekeke Pretty much. Also, what is this "Zergs aren't winning shit" mentality... Then when Zergs win, it's because they were either 10 times better or because the opponent played like shit... HOW do we win this argument? If they lose, it's because their race is absolute trash, if they win, it's because their opponents were absolute trash compared to them. Currently, every race is even on GSL wins, the tournament win rate for foreign races is about 50% for every race. What the fuck do we have to go on? IdrA made an if/then argument that doesn't work because if it were true, Zergs should never win a fucking game unless they're 10 times better than their opponents... So are the win rates close because every Zerg player just happens to be that much better and the race is holding them back just enough to keep it even? I'm at a loss here. I think IdrA was talking about tournament wins, rather than winrates in paticular. And he's right if you look specifically at the facts only, he and ret are the only two Zerg foreigners to take a major foreign tournament in a long time. Both of them were 2 of the top 3 best BW foreigners when they switched to SC2. Obviously IdrA overexaggerates his complaints, but unlike both MVP or MC, his points are backed up by current tournament results, which until we can actually gauge skill effectively, are the only indicator of balance, because we have to assume they're players of equal skill spread evenly throughout the 3 races.
unfortunately i do not think you can assume this. early on, there was a clear bias for terran players (maybe because players thought terran was the strongest race or maybe for other reasons such as early allins that were too strong) and then as things progressed more and more people used protoss (similar reasons could be true). there are also fewer zerg users than the other races on many of the servers last time i checked. some of this might balance out over time ...
it is a young game ...
|
On May 05 2011 06:19 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 06:07 Mordiford wrote:On May 05 2011 06:02 Soap wrote:I think no one brought this up in the cast out of respect for Tyler, but IdrA says he and ret are the only zergs winning tournaments because they are supposed to, out of their experience from BW. Tyler was his major rival, now plays the ez race, and he isn't winning shit. Case closed. Zerg don't have many good players. This game is less than an year old and someone managed to switch from terran and become top 5 zerg in the world sans Korea, there are new players in the rise, I have to concur that this balance discussion is just silly and leads to nothing but Blizzard going back and forth with the game under "pro players" blessings. See how BW pro players solve "imbalances": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217470. Just less humorously, perhaps. kekekeke Pretty much. Also, what is this "Zergs aren't winning shit" mentality... Then when Zergs win, it's because they were either 10 times better or because the opponent played like shit... HOW do we win this argument? If they lose, it's because their race is absolute trash, if they win, it's because their opponents were absolute trash compared to them. Currently, every race is even on GSL wins, the tournament win rate for foreign races is about 50% for every race. What the fuck do we have to go on? IdrA made an if/then argument that doesn't work because if it were true, Zergs should never win a fucking game unless they're 10 times better than their opponents... So are the win rates close because every Zerg player just happens to be that much better and the race is holding them back just enough to keep it even? I'm at a loss here. I think IdrA was talking about tournament wins, rather than winrates in paticular. And he's right if you look specifically at the facts only, he and ret are the only two Zerg foreigners to take a major foreign tournament in a long time. Both of them were 2 of the top 3 best BW foreigners when they switched to SC2. Obviously IdrA overexaggerates his complaints, but unlike both MVP or MC, his points are backed up by current tournament results, which until we can actually gauge skill effectively, are the only indicator of balance, because we have to assume they're players of equal skill spread evenly throughout the 3 races.
he makes the great point that if you look at zergs who win tournaments, they are super amazing players.
IdrA and Ret were by far the most skilled players in those tournaments. and NesTea is the best zerg in the world, so of course he won a GSL. also FruitDealer was something special when he won GSL 1. yet if you look at Ts or Ps that have won tournaments, they simply arent as skilled.
If you look at players like HuK NaNiwa SeleCT KiWiKaKi, sure they are some of the best players in the world, but if you look at their history before sc2, its hard to imagine them having any success compared to people like IdrA or Ret, who were two of the best foriegn BW players. and what do these players i listed have in common? they dont play zerg. Name one zerg who won a tournament that ISNT an exceptional gamer/player. Thats right, you cant
|
On May 05 2011 06:19 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 06:07 Mordiford wrote:On May 05 2011 06:02 Soap wrote:I think no one brought this up in the cast out of respect for Tyler, but IdrA says he and ret are the only zergs winning tournaments because they are supposed to, out of their experience from BW. Tyler was his major rival, now plays the ez race, and he isn't winning shit. Case closed. Zerg don't have many good players. This game is less than an year old and someone managed to switch from terran and become top 5 zerg in the world sans Korea, there are new players in the rise, I have to concur that this balance discussion is just silly and leads to nothing but Blizzard going back and forth with the game under "pro players" blessings. See how BW pro players solve "imbalances": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217470. Just less humorously, perhaps. kekekeke Pretty much. Also, what is this "Zergs aren't winning shit" mentality... Then when Zergs win, it's because they were either 10 times better or because the opponent played like shit... HOW do we win this argument? If they lose, it's because their race is absolute trash, if they win, it's because their opponents were absolute trash compared to them. Currently, every race is even on GSL wins, the tournament win rate for foreign races is about 50% for every race. What the fuck do we have to go on? IdrA made an if/then argument that doesn't work because if it were true, Zergs should never win a fucking game unless they're 10 times better than their opponents... So are the win rates close because every Zerg player just happens to be that much better and the race is holding them back just enough to keep it even? I'm at a loss here. I think IdrA was talking about tournament wins, rather than winrates in paticular. And he's right if you look specifically at the facts only, he and ret are the only two Zerg foreigners to take a major foreign tournament in a long time. Both of them were 2 of the top 3 best BW foreigners when they switched to SC2. Obviously IdrA overexaggerates his complaints, but unlike both MVP or MC, his points are backed up by current tournament results, which until we can actually gauge skill effectively, are the only indicator of balance, because we have to assume they're players of equal skill spread evenly throughout the 3 races.
This confuses the shit out of me though, because those are 2 people sure... Ret and IdrA...
Who the fuck were NesTea and FruitDealer? Neither of them were huge BW names? This example isn't consistent.
Okay, we have big name foreign Zergs from BW winning, we have not-so-big name Zergs from Korea winning.
It's an inconsistent example. NesTea was known for fucking 2v2's in BroodWar, besides it's a tiny sample.
|
Why? Early aggro comes before the economic advantage of an expo kicks in. There is no other reason to build more hatcheries as Zerg. You can spend all your money with 1hatch+queen, unless you're going 100% ling.
You don't need the economy to hold the push, you need the units. Zerg builds their units out of hatcheries, if you didn't notice. You also, again, will lose even if you hold, because you're way behind economically if you're on one base. Believe it or not, you don't win the game just by holding off an early push.
No, this is something from BW that is repeated for SC2 for some dumb reason. It's still true to a small degree, but it is nothing like it was in BW. Queens have completely changed the number of hatcheries a Zerg required for production.
For some reason, I'm more likely to believe every single pro zerg player over you. Do you think that one-basing works totally fine and nobody ever tried it? Have you ever played zerg at any sort of level?
|
Another great episode. Really enjoyed the passion in everyone's voices has the conversations got serious...with some huge disagreements.
|
Im suprised at the amount of people that take what idra says as truth. I mean he speaks in absolutes how can you take such clearly untrue absolutes as facts
|
On May 05 2011 06:22 Chicane wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 05:42 karpo wrote:
As a comment on the whole EG vs TL. Wouldn't it be MORE proffessional to say:
"EG and Liquid had problem finding a compromise that worked for both the Master's Cup and the korean Liquid players, so team liquid decided to decline the invitation for this tournament."
Or make a disclaimer saying that you don't speak for TL but from what you know this-or-that lead to the decision.
Seems like we get alot of posts that can be read in different ways, causing unneeded drama. Posting just "we invited them, they declined" is not the most professional way of handling the situation and it kinda lays the blame on TL. It also leads to speculation and people coming to stupid conclusions without knowing the full story.
I guess everyone will learn and stuff like this will be less frequent as the sport grows. "causing unneeded drama" The funny thing about that line is, if he went into a bit more detail, people might be flaming him for saying their side of the story when he had no right to. It is much better that he simply give a short response. You know what... let's just assume you are completely right. That when he said TL chose not to participate... that the appropriate assumption was NOT "Hmm... they chose not to accept... there must have been some kind of personal issue that made them not participate" but instead lets say that people thought to themselves "Hmm... TL didn't participate... they must feel they are too good for the league and have no interest in the money." So the second way would be the way to interpret it negatively, since so many people are saying that Colbi made TL look arrogant or pretentious. Let me first say... who honestly thought it was the second case... that TL was pretentious and had no interest in the money? If you honestly thought that... well then I am honestly shocked that you jumped to that conclusion... even when TL still had a chance to respond... Seriously... for all the people who are saying "EG made TL look like the bad guys" did you honestly immediately think that TL thought they were too good for the tournament or anything like that? Someone who has repeatedly said how EG made TL look bad please answer. But once again... let's assume you went with that thought... that TL chose not to accept the invite... therefore they are arrogant pricks who didn't want to participate in the tournament. Well then... what would then happen if someone from TL then told their side and said "Yes that is correct we did not choose to accept because of issues with the servers." Would there be a problem at all? Would you continue saying "nah they are still pretentious and think they are too good for the tournament" or would you realize you were wrong and move along. Hopefully the latter. The point is... Colbi said a brief line... and I'm sure at the time he didn't think of all the little details and misinterpretations... because quite frankly they AREN'T A BIG DEAL. TL could have simply responded calmly and it would have been cleared up. On the other hand... Tyler took it far too personally and made it a heated debate. At this point many people took a sentence that they originally would have looked at and not thought much of (because numerous tournaments have said "this player declined to play" and nothing came of it... and often the player later clarified) and made it a huge deal because of some of the other posts. I don't know why I keep debating this... it's a bit fun, but at this point I am repeating myself. I will say it again though. If you step back from the situation and take an unbiased look at it... you will realize that what Colbi said was clearly not a blatant attack... and it honestly wasn't a big deal. Maybe some people thought that he was saying TL was being pretentious (because you know how many people here assume that TL wouldn't want to be part of the tournament and wouldn't want the money right? /sarcasm) but at the end of the day it was a very small, quick post... and TL still had their chance to respond and walk away from the situation. Once again... the point is people are scrutinizing a single sentence far too much when in any other situation you wouldn't even think twice about it.
If you read the thread people responded with posts about "being dissapointed with TL for declining" then turning it around after Tylers post.
I really don't have a bone to pick with either side, just saying that the involved people need to look at stuff like this and figure out what's proper to say. I personally believe that a post with a description about the circumstances while still keeping it open for TL to say their part would have been optimal. Especially on these kinds of venues where speculation and jumping to conclusions run rampant.
|
That was a great SOTG.
I'd actually like to see Day[9] do two dailies addressing Idra's points:
1) Zerg Scouting Options - What have players done that consistently enable Zerg to scout, with enough time to react?
2) Countering a 200/200 Protoss - I'd realllllllly like Tyler to post some of the game's he's lost to Zerg once he's maxed at 200 so we (or Day9) can see/analyze how to beat a 200/200 Toss.
|
On May 05 2011 06:26 L3g3nd_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 06:19 1Eris1 wrote:On May 05 2011 06:07 Mordiford wrote:On May 05 2011 06:02 Soap wrote:I think no one brought this up in the cast out of respect for Tyler, but IdrA says he and ret are the only zergs winning tournaments because they are supposed to, out of their experience from BW. Tyler was his major rival, now plays the ez race, and he isn't winning shit. Case closed. Zerg don't have many good players. This game is less than an year old and someone managed to switch from terran and become top 5 zerg in the world sans Korea, there are new players in the rise, I have to concur that this balance discussion is just silly and leads to nothing but Blizzard going back and forth with the game under "pro players" blessings. See how BW pro players solve "imbalances": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217470. Just less humorously, perhaps. kekekeke Pretty much. Also, what is this "Zergs aren't winning shit" mentality... Then when Zergs win, it's because they were either 10 times better or because the opponent played like shit... HOW do we win this argument? If they lose, it's because their race is absolute trash, if they win, it's because their opponents were absolute trash compared to them. Currently, every race is even on GSL wins, the tournament win rate for foreign races is about 50% for every race. What the fuck do we have to go on? IdrA made an if/then argument that doesn't work because if it were true, Zergs should never win a fucking game unless they're 10 times better than their opponents... So are the win rates close because every Zerg player just happens to be that much better and the race is holding them back just enough to keep it even? I'm at a loss here. I think IdrA was talking about tournament wins, rather than winrates in paticular. And he's right if you look specifically at the facts only, he and ret are the only two Zerg foreigners to take a major foreign tournament in a long time. Both of them were 2 of the top 3 best BW foreigners when they switched to SC2. Obviously IdrA overexaggerates his complaints, but unlike both MVP or MC, his points are backed up by current tournament results, which until we can actually gauge skill effectively, are the only indicator of balance, because we have to assume they're players of equal skill spread evenly throughout the 3 races. he makes the great point that if you look at zergs who win tournaments, they are super amazing players. IdrA and Ret were by far the most skilled players in those tournaments. and NesTea is the best zerg in the world, so of course he won a GSL. also FruitDealer was something special when he won GSL 1. yet if you look at Ts or Ps that have won tournaments, they simply arent as skilled. If you look at players like HuK NaNiwa SeleCT KiWiKaKi, sure they are some of the best players in the world, but if you look at their history before sc2, its hard to imagine them having any success compared to people like IdrA or Ret, who were two of the best foriegn BW players. and what do these players i listed have in common? they dont play zerg. Name one zerg who won a tournament that ISNT an exceptional gamer/player. Thats right, you cant
Actually, Naniwa and Kiwi were both extremely good WC3 players. And how can you immediately dismiss them as "unexceptional?" MC and MVP are much, much more skilled than Fruitdealer and I think even IdrA would admit that; after GSL he said he really disliked Fruitdealer's play. He also had some issues with Nestea's play at some points.
|
On May 05 2011 06:27 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +Why? Early aggro comes before the economic advantage of an expo kicks in. There is no other reason to build more hatcheries as Zerg. You can spend all your money with 1hatch+queen, unless you're going 100% ling. You don't need the economy to hold the push, you need the units. Zerg builds their units out of hatcheries, if you didn't notice. You also, again, will lose even if you hold, because you're way behind economically if you're on one base. Believe it or not, you don't win the game just by holding off an early push. Show nested quote +No, this is something from BW that is repeated for SC2 for some dumb reason. It's still true to a small degree, but it is nothing like it was in BW. Queens have completely changed the number of hatcheries a Zerg required for production. For some reason, I'm more likely to believe every single pro zerg player over you. Do you think that one-basing works totally fine and nobody ever tried it? Have you ever played zerg at any sort of level?
he says there is no point in getting a super fast hatchery if you cant 100% defend it.
you can saturate your whole base off of 1 hatchery, so there is no need to rush for a 14/15 hatchery other than beeing risky / extremely greedy.
he points out that in broodwar you had to build a hatchery for the cause of larva, in sc2 you have queens that provide a 1 base zerg enough larva for the early game.
|
|
|
On May 05 2011 06:29 Marzocchi wrote:
That was a great SOTG.
I'd actually like to see Day[9] do two dailies addressing Idra's points:
1) Zerg Scouting Options - What have players done that consistently enable Zerg to scout, with enough time to react?
2) Countering a 200/200 Protoss - I'd realllllllly like Tyler to post some of the game's he's lost to Zerg once he's maxed at 200 so we (or Day9) can see/analyze how to beat a 200/200 Toss.
This is another stupid approach to the game.
You don't have to be able to beat a Protoss 200/200 for the game to be balanced, there will always be a situation you can get yourself into that you can't get yourself out of.
It's near impossible for most Terrans to beat a well established Brood Lord, Infestor, Corruptor composition provided the Zerg doesn't afk and suicide his army. Does that mean Zerg is broken? No it means you have to put on early aggression, break their shit, make sure you don't let them max out with minerals to spare on that composition.
|
On May 05 2011 06:27 corpuscle wrote:
You don't need the economy to hold the push, you need the units. Zerg builds their units out of hatcheries, if you didn't notice.
Yes? You don't need more than 1 hatchery to supply a saturated base. So until your economy from the expo kicks in, you only need 1 hatchery for unit production. Since most allins hit before your expo can provide an economic advantage, there is often no need to expand before killing the allin. Though of course, if you can, then you should.
You also, again, will lose even if you hold, because you're way behind economically if you're on one base. Believe it or not, you don't win the game just by holding off an early push.
Well of course, but that's not what was said. I said you can hold the push with 1 hatchery, which is true. Whether you die an economic death after that depends how allin they were.
For some reason, I'm more likely to believe every single pro zerg player over you. Do you think that one-basing works totally fine and nobody ever tried it? Have you ever played zerg at any sort of level?
No, one basing is garbage. It's garbage for every race. I am not advocating it at all. All I am saying is that you do not need an expansion to hold a 1base allin. This is the same for Zerg as P/T. Your economy from the expo doesn't kick in early enough, and you do not need the production unless you require an extremely ling heavy army.
|
On May 05 2011 06:29 Marzocchi wrote:
That was a great SOTG.
I'd actually like to see Day[9] do two dailies addressing Idra's points:
1) Zerg Scouting Options - What have players done that consistently enable Zerg to scout, with enough time to react?
2) Countering a 200/200 Protoss - I'd realllllllly like Tyler to post some of the game's he's lost to Zerg once he's maxed at 200 so we (or Day9) can see/analyze how to beat a 200/200 Toss.
This is a good idea ... about the 200/200 protoss, one thing I have seen some players doing (Sheth) is taking like 20 drones from your expo and building 20 spines, then maxing back to 200 usually with higher tech units like infestors or morphing corruptors to broods, then cancel all the spines so that you are 220/200.
I think these types of episodes would be quite educational in evaluating how to get at these shortcomings (either in zerg players or strategy or the game design). Unfortunately, I can't see day9 ever admitting there is an issue. He refuses to do this ...
|
On May 05 2011 06:26 L3g3nd_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 06:19 1Eris1 wrote:On May 05 2011 06:07 Mordiford wrote:On May 05 2011 06:02 Soap wrote:I think no one brought this up in the cast out of respect for Tyler, but IdrA says he and ret are the only zergs winning tournaments because they are supposed to, out of their experience from BW. Tyler was his major rival, now plays the ez race, and he isn't winning shit. Case closed. Zerg don't have many good players. This game is less than an year old and someone managed to switch from terran and become top 5 zerg in the world sans Korea, there are new players in the rise, I have to concur that this balance discussion is just silly and leads to nothing but Blizzard going back and forth with the game under "pro players" blessings. See how BW pro players solve "imbalances": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217470. Just less humorously, perhaps. kekekeke Pretty much. Also, what is this "Zergs aren't winning shit" mentality... Then when Zergs win, it's because they were either 10 times better or because the opponent played like shit... HOW do we win this argument? If they lose, it's because their race is absolute trash, if they win, it's because their opponents were absolute trash compared to them. Currently, every race is even on GSL wins, the tournament win rate for foreign races is about 50% for every race. What the fuck do we have to go on? IdrA made an if/then argument that doesn't work because if it were true, Zergs should never win a fucking game unless they're 10 times better than their opponents... So are the win rates close because every Zerg player just happens to be that much better and the race is holding them back just enough to keep it even? I'm at a loss here. I think IdrA was talking about tournament wins, rather than winrates in paticular. And he's right if you look specifically at the facts only, he and ret are the only two Zerg foreigners to take a major foreign tournament in a long time. Both of them were 2 of the top 3 best BW foreigners when they switched to SC2. Obviously IdrA overexaggerates his complaints, but unlike both MVP or MC, his points are backed up by current tournament results, which until we can actually gauge skill effectively, are the only indicator of balance, because we have to assume they're players of equal skill spread evenly throughout the 3 races. he makes the great point that if you look at zergs who win tournaments, they are super amazing players. IdrA and Ret were by far the most skilled players in those tournaments. and NesTea is the best zerg in the world, so of course he won a GSL. also FruitDealer was something special when he won GSL 1. yet if you look at Ts or Ps that have won tournaments, they simply arent as skilled. If you look at players like HuK NaNiwa SeleCT KiWiKaKi, sure they are some of the best players in the world, but if you look at their history before sc2, its hard to imagine them having any success compared to people like IdrA or Ret, who were two of the best foriegn BW players. and what do these players i listed have in common? they dont play zerg. Name one zerg who won a tournament that ISNT an exceptional gamer/player. Thats right, you cant
Nestea from what i know was pretty bad at BW, he had no real success. Your BW pros argument falls kinda flat considering there's lots of BW players that play terran/protoss, shouldn't they all do way better than any zerg player AND any newcomer?
Also blank statements like non zerg tournament winners are less skilled is baseless and stupid.
From what i've seen of Ret in SC2 he just doesn't do that well. I mean he lost both the TSL and GSL by just not adapting or changing anything up. He and Idra also said that one base couldn't hold of 2 rax, something proved wrong. They are not superheroes. They are regular people with bias just as everyone else, in Idras case the bias is probably stronger than most.
|
On May 05 2011 06:26 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 06:19 1Eris1 wrote:On May 05 2011 06:07 Mordiford wrote:On May 05 2011 06:02 Soap wrote:I think no one brought this up in the cast out of respect for Tyler, but IdrA says he and ret are the only zergs winning tournaments because they are supposed to, out of their experience from BW. Tyler was his major rival, now plays the ez race, and he isn't winning shit. Case closed. Zerg don't have many good players. This game is less than an year old and someone managed to switch from terran and become top 5 zerg in the world sans Korea, there are new players in the rise, I have to concur that this balance discussion is just silly and leads to nothing but Blizzard going back and forth with the game under "pro players" blessings. See how BW pro players solve "imbalances": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217470. Just less humorously, perhaps. kekekeke Pretty much. Also, what is this "Zergs aren't winning shit" mentality... Then when Zergs win, it's because they were either 10 times better or because the opponent played like shit... HOW do we win this argument? If they lose, it's because their race is absolute trash, if they win, it's because their opponents were absolute trash compared to them. Currently, every race is even on GSL wins, the tournament win rate for foreign races is about 50% for every race. What the fuck do we have to go on? IdrA made an if/then argument that doesn't work because if it were true, Zergs should never win a fucking game unless they're 10 times better than their opponents... So are the win rates close because every Zerg player just happens to be that much better and the race is holding them back just enough to keep it even? I'm at a loss here. I think IdrA was talking about tournament wins, rather than winrates in paticular. And he's right if you look specifically at the facts only, he and ret are the only two Zerg foreigners to take a major foreign tournament in a long time. Both of them were 2 of the top 3 best BW foreigners when they switched to SC2. Obviously IdrA overexaggerates his complaints, but unlike both MVP or MC, his points are backed up by current tournament results, which until we can actually gauge skill effectively, are the only indicator of balance, because we have to assume they're players of equal skill spread evenly throughout the 3 races. This confuses the shit out of me though, because those are 2 people sure... Ret and IdrA... Who the fuck were NesTea and FruitDealer? Neither of them were huge BW names? This example isn't consistent. Okay, we have big name foreign Zergs from BW winning, we have not-so-big name Zergs from Korea winning. It's an inconsistent example. NesTea was known for fucking 2v2's in BroodWar, besides it's a tiny sample.
I was referring mostly to foreigner tournaments. I think there is a fair spread of BW pros in Korea playing all races. (Koreans that is)
|
he says there is no point in getting a super fast hatchery if you cant 100% defend it.
you can saturate your whole base off of 1 hatchery, so there is no need to rush for a 14/15 hatchery other than beeing risky / extremely greedy.
You need to have the base up early so you can saturate your natural faster. Do you guys have any idea how zerg economy works? I know you can saturate your main off one base, but that delays your natural, which you need in order to, you know, not lose the game.
he points out that in broodwar you had to build a hatchery for the cause of larva, in sc2 you have queens that provide a 1 base zerg enough larva for the early game.
It's not enough larva if you're spreading creep, building drones and units, etc. etc. Again, there's a reason the pros do it, and it's not conditioning that carried over from BW, it's how the race works, period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
