|
On November 06 2010 03:03 Looky wrote:
you terrans that are qqing dont seem to follow the trend. now a days i seen terran just mass marine and a really fast expo with a very strong timing attack with tank marines. which is really freaken strong to hold off. its not just mass harrass anymore. please watch foxer and some other good terrans plz.
nvm banelings, GG.
On November 06 2010 05:34 iEchoic wrote:
People need to stop hating on Boxer's proxy raxes. He's not proxy raxing because he's stupid, he's proxy raxing because he knows there's no way to beat a macro-oriented zerg player in the lategame. It's his only option.
Foxer will be doing a lot of the same cheesy early stuff or he will lose (he will lose anyway).
It's easy to use Foxer as a model of how TvZ is played, but Foxer basically lost the series. Kyrix just gave him the win in game 5. Had Kyrix not macroed like a plat player, we'd all be talking about how stupid Foxer's strategies were. Think about it for a second: Foxer massively outplayed Kyrix in the series and still basically lost. Stop using Foxer v Kyrix as an example of how TvZ should be played.
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race.
|
On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race.
I am so tired of this fallacious argument.
Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long.
Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable.
Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks.
|
On November 06 2010 07:55 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race. I am so tired of this fallacious argument. Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long. Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable. Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks.
A truth can be offending, it remains a truth.
Balancing Zerg macro mechanics can't be done straightly, because any nerfs to inject larva will make all the 4warpgate push an all the other all-in strats too strong.
The only way is to give a real superior T3 force with kill for free units (better HSM) to Terran (and Protoss too, but this might already be the case with colossi + HT) like in BW.
|
On November 06 2010 07:55 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race. I am so tired of this fallacious argument. Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long. Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable. Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks.
Zerg has the worst economy for the first 10 minutes and their income is only slightly better endgame? WHAT?
Surely you jest sir.
Also, macro isn't just income. It's about being able to tech switch and mass produce units and expand.
|
On November 06 2010 08:05 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 07:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race. I am so tired of this fallacious argument. Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long. Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable. Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks. Zerg has the worst economy for the first 10 minutes and their income is only slightly better endgame? WHAT? Surely you jest sir. Also, macro isn't just income. It's about being able to tech switch and mass produce units and expand.
Watch the income tabs next time you get a hold of a pro rep and watch that what he is saying is entirely true. 2 base terran vs 3 base have near equal income thanks to mules.
Late game army rebuilding is the only way for zerg to take advantage of their macro advantage. If they are able to stockpile thousands of mins/gas and still trade armies with you, you have been outplayed. =/
|
On November 06 2010 05:45 PartyBiscuit wrote:
If you want to use GSL results at all, then we already see the huge win % of Zs over T
ZvT so far in GSL2, zerg leads 10-8.
|
On November 06 2010 05:26 Bull-Demon wrote:
Hey another one post wonder complaining about terran being weak. Gsl 3 out 4 are terran. What are you complaining about?
Did Zerg players stop whining when FruitDealer won the first GSL? No? Then why do Zerg players point at this GSL for balance evidence?
|
On November 06 2010 09:11 Hyren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 05:26 Bull-Demon wrote:
Hey another one post wonder complaining about terran being weak. Gsl 3 out 4 are terran. What are you complaining about? Did Zerg players stop whining when FruitDealer won the first GSL? No? Then why do Zerg players point at this GSL for balance evidence?
I referred to it to point to the terran's LACK of evidence. There is almost absolutely no evidence in favor of the claim that terran gets rolled by zerg except a bunch of theorycraft and hyperbole. Look at the post patch tournament results thread and tell me terran is broken. Get some perspective ffs.
|
First of all i had faith i even bet money on Boxer! I was cheering for him until the end.
But you have to realise there is nothing that can excuse Boxer here. He played horrible, i think he is the worst terran i have ever seen in GSL playing vs zerg.
-The drop where the mutas could attack the tanks and the Thors were isolated out of tank range to get owned by roaches..
-The weird cheese attemps where even tho his opponent goes hatch first he gets owned almost by drones only
-The Tank/Marine pushes where he didnt clear the creep and engaged unsieged and on creep.
-His marine splits vs banelings. Where marines did actually 0 damage total.
He has to improve at so many things and i think its awful that he dares to whine about zerg while he is so obviously bad at this matchup.
|
On November 06 2010 05:34 iEchoic wrote:
People need to stop hating on Boxer's proxy raxes. He's not proxy raxing because he's stupid, he's proxy raxing because he knows there's no way to beat a macro-oriented zerg player in the lategame. It's his only option.
how do you know that its even imba and not just the skill gap. eg. if boxer plays JD in bw theres no way he would win late game, so z>t late game in bw? who knows, it might just be the skill gap give it some time geez
|
Although we've seen some exciting TvZ games in the GSL (Kyrix vs Foxer final game comes to mind), generally the games are rather predictable and boring. I don't appreciate the current gameplay at all. I don't like watching it, and I don't like playing it. The onus is on terran to win early, or zerg wins by default. This is not well balanced or fun. More and more zergs are figuring out that they can harass with mutas long enough to get a ridiculous amount of banelings. This either contains terran allowing zerg to take the entire map, or forces terran to try and figure out exactly when he has a slight edge in terms of army composition for a push. If he chooses correctly he can win, if he micros perfectly. Then there's dealing with zerg simply not engaging but attacking your main with mutas while getting even more banelings, randomly burrowed banelings in pairs forcing you to get a raven or have your marines blown up, tech switches, etc, etc. It's just... not right.
|
On November 02 2010 21:26 Skyze wrote:
Can someone explain to me this "Terran sucks in lategame" theory?? Has any evidence at all point to this? It seems every terran has completely dominated protoss in GSL.. Maybe vs Z, sure once a Z gets 5+ bases its hard for terran, but as far as TvP is concerned, I dont understand this statement.
If we are theorycrafting how "Ohh protoss has collosus and storms".. What about Terran getting units other than marauders?? I know I would much rather have mass tanks and vikings over collosus and storms. Tanks still do insane damage, and vikings can take out collosus fast while dodging storms. Then we get into BCs vs Carriers.. BCs easily win there.
Im just curious; if any of you played any high level (diamond 1000+ at least) FFA games that actually get to the "lategame" (ie 200/200 armies with 3-3 upgrades)... 9 times out of 10, Terrans will win in the end with BCs/thors/marines/tanks, it can take out every protoss army with little effort.
Anyways, not saying terran is overpowered (just marauders obviously still much needed nerf).. I'd say TvP is about 99% perfect balance besides marauders, but im still flabbergasted with this whole "Terran sucks lategame" argument.. Can anyone show me ANY sort of proof??
Uh, first of all the Terrans who won, won before late game. Ie. before win storm came out. Second, did you seriously just try to make a balance claim off FFA?
|
On November 06 2010 08:41 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 08:05 Dalavita wrote:On November 06 2010 07:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race. I am so tired of this fallacious argument. Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long. Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable. Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks. Zerg has the worst economy for the first 10 minutes and their income is only slightly better endgame? WHAT? Surely you jest sir. Also, macro isn't just income. It's about being able to tech switch and mass produce units and expand. Watch the income tabs next time you get a hold of a pro rep and watch that what he is saying is entirely true. 2 base terran vs 3 base have near equal income thanks to mules. Late game army rebuilding is the only way for zerg to take advantage of their macro advantage. If they are able to stockpile thousands of mins/gas and still trade armies with you, you have been outplayed. =/
Actually you're wrong and you're literally making stuff up. A mule gives bonus mining equal to 5 workers. On two bases, you have two orbitals, which is bonus workers at a given moment. Zerg on 3 bases should be saturated with a total of 90 workers, while terran has two bases with 60, and if you count mules as +10 he'll have 70.
Terrans also have to use scan, so having two mules all the time doesn't actually occur. Finally, a Zerg can saturate a base far more quickly than a Terran.
|
On November 06 2010 10:54 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 08:41 Bull-Demon wrote:On November 06 2010 08:05 Dalavita wrote:On November 06 2010 07:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race. I am so tired of this fallacious argument. Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long. Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable. Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks. Zerg has the worst economy for the first 10 minutes and their income is only slightly better endgame? WHAT? Surely you jest sir. Also, macro isn't just income. It's about being able to tech switch and mass produce units and expand. Watch the income tabs next time you get a hold of a pro rep and watch that what he is saying is entirely true. 2 base terran vs 3 base have near equal income thanks to mules. Late game army rebuilding is the only way for zerg to take advantage of their macro advantage. If they are able to stockpile thousands of mins/gas and still trade armies with you, you have been outplayed. =/ Actually you're wrong and you're literally making stuff up. A mule gives bonus mining equal to 5 workers. On two bases, you have two orbitals, which is bonus workers at a given moment. Zerg on 3 bases should be saturated with a total of 90 workers, while terran has two bases with 60, and if you count mules as +10 he'll have 70. Terrans also have to use scan, so having two mules all the time doesn't actually occur. Finally, a Zerg can saturate a base far more quickly than a Terran.
How often do you actually see a zerg saturated on every base? At MOST they have 2 drones/patch and 3 on each geyser. You can't think about balance in a sterile perfect world where every base is perfectly saturated. In reality, if a terran is a base behind zerg, their income is roughly equal. (I play terran myself).
|
On November 06 2010 10:54 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 08:41 Bull-Demon wrote:On November 06 2010 08:05 Dalavita wrote:On November 06 2010 07:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race. I am so tired of this fallacious argument. Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long. Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable. Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks. Zerg has the worst economy for the first 10 minutes and their income is only slightly better endgame? WHAT? Surely you jest sir. Also, macro isn't just income. It's about being able to tech switch and mass produce units and expand. Watch the income tabs next time you get a hold of a pro rep and watch that what he is saying is entirely true. 2 base terran vs 3 base have near equal income thanks to mules. Late game army rebuilding is the only way for zerg to take advantage of their macro advantage. If they are able to stockpile thousands of mins/gas and still trade armies with you, you have been outplayed. =/ Actually you're wrong and you're literally making stuff up. A mule gives bonus mining equal to 5 workers. On two bases, you have two orbitals, which is bonus workers at a given moment. Zerg on 3 bases should be saturated with a total of 90 workers, while terran has two bases with 60, and if you count mules as +10 he'll have 70. Terrans also have to use scan, so having two mules all the time doesn't actually occur. Finally, a Zerg can saturate a base far more quickly than a Terran.
Don't theorycraft, actually watch some games like I suggested. Zerg doesn't magically get free drones, they have to pay for them just like every other race. Obviously if the zerg is able to fully saturate THREE bases while the terran only has two, then of course of the incomes won't match up. Zerg has to take more bases to spread their drones around more. Most pro games don't have the zerg players with 20-30 more drones. They have more bases, more spread out drones to match the additional income mules provide above two base saturation for terran.
|
On November 06 2010 08:41 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 08:05 Dalavita wrote:On November 06 2010 07:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race. I am so tired of this fallacious argument. Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long. Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable. Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks. Zerg has the worst economy for the first 10 minutes and their income is only slightly better endgame? WHAT? Surely you jest sir. Also, macro isn't just income. It's about being able to tech switch and mass produce units and expand. Watch the income tabs next time you get a hold of a pro rep and watch that what he is saying is entirely true. 2 base terran vs 3 base have near equal income thanks to mules.
Sadly, there are some Zerg players that are so biased, it is borderline pathetic.
Even if the mineral income is the same as you claim, you ignore the advantage of 6 gas refineries (3 hatcheries) to 4 gas refineries (2 CCs).
|
On November 06 2010 08:57 Hammurabio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 05:45 PartyBiscuit wrote:
If you want to use GSL results at all, then we already see the huge win % of Zs over T ZvT so far in GSL2, zerg leads 10-8.
lol but you don't understand thats almost 50% terran players are used to that number being like 16-2 terran.
+ Show Spoiler +So boxer loses by proxy raxing and people auto say zerg op I mean what lol.
|
On November 06 2010 10:54 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 08:41 Bull-Demon wrote:On November 06 2010 08:05 Dalavita wrote:On November 06 2010 07:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:
This is so true that it's actually sad.
When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY!
ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race. I am so tired of this fallacious argument. Zerg has the worst economy of the 3 races for the first 10 minutes of the game, and their income is only slightly better beyond that unless T or P chooses to 1-base all game long. Terrans constantly going all-in vs Zerg has to do so much more to do with Zerg early game being weak than it does with Zerg late-game macro mechanics being unstoppable. Boxer has said multiple times that TvZ is his worst match-up. He took a shot at his best opportunity, early game. It didn't work. This is how you survive your weak match-ups in tourney play, you try to cheese your way through and hope it sticks. Zerg has the worst economy for the first 10 minutes and their income is only slightly better endgame? WHAT? Surely you jest sir. Also, macro isn't just income. It's about being able to tech switch and mass produce units and expand. Watch the income tabs next time you get a hold of a pro rep and watch that what he is saying is entirely true. 2 base terran vs 3 base have near equal income thanks to mules. Late game army rebuilding is the only way for zerg to take advantage of their macro advantage. If they are able to stockpile thousands of mins/gas and still trade armies with you, you have been outplayed. =/ Actually you're wrong and you're literally making stuff up. A mule gives bonus mining equal to 5 workers. On two bases, you have two orbitals, which is bonus workers at a given moment. Zerg on 3 bases should be saturated with a total of 90 workers, while terran has two bases with 60, and if you count mules as +10 he'll have 70. Terrans also have to use scan, so having two mules all the time doesn't actually occur. Finally, a Zerg can saturate a base far more quickly than a Terran.
90 WORKERS?
are you new to this game?
really i am not sure if any good zerg has ever made 90 drones. that is ridiculous
|
On November 06 2010 06:42 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 03:03 Looky wrote:
you terrans that are qqing dont seem to follow the trend. now a days i seen terran just mass marine and a really fast expo with a very strong timing attack with tank marines. which is really freaken strong to hold off. its not just mass harrass anymore. please watch foxer and some other good terrans plz. nvm banelings, GG. Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 05:34 iEchoic wrote:
People need to stop hating on Boxer's proxy raxes. He's not proxy raxing because he's stupid, he's proxy raxing because he knows there's no way to beat a macro-oriented zerg player in the lategame. It's his only option.
Foxer will be doing a lot of the same cheesy early stuff or he will lose (he will lose anyway).
It's easy to use Foxer as a model of how TvZ is played, but Foxer basically lost the series. Kyrix just gave him the win in game 5. Had Kyrix not macroed like a plat player, we'd all be talking about how stupid Foxer's strategies were. Think about it for a second: Foxer massively outplayed Kyrix in the series and still basically lost. Stop using Foxer v Kyrix as an example of how TvZ should be played. This is so true that it's actually sad. When people say Boxer fucked up, they need to realize what happens when a good player fights a good opponent. GOOD OPPONENTS HAVE A WAY OF MAKING YOU LOOK SILLY! ITR vs Fruit Dealer in GSL #1. People were bitching at ITR when he was playing it as perfectly as he could. Tank dropping on LT, stopped, medivac dropping, stopped. Boxer looking foolish has to do with Nestea playing properly and blocking him, on top of having superior macro mechanics due to his race.
Are you kidding? ITR played like trash in the season 1 finals. Any good Z/T player at the time will tell you this.
|
On November 06 2010 09:49 TheDna wrote:
First of all i had faith i even bet money on Boxer! I was cheering for him until the end.
But you have to realise there is nothing that can excuse Boxer here. He played horrible, i think he is the worst terran i have ever seen in GSL playing vs zerg.
-The drop where the mutas could attack the tanks and the Thors were isolated out of tank range to get owned by roaches..
-The weird cheese attemps where even tho his opponent goes hatch first he gets owned almost by drones only
-The Tank/Marine pushes where he didnt clear the creep and engaged unsieged and on creep.
-His marine splits vs banelings. Where marines did actually 0 damage total.
He has to improve at so many things and i think its awful that he dares to whine about zerg while he is so obviously bad at this matchup.
It's been mentioned over and over by me and other players, as well as boxer himself, and others - you have to do a 2 base timing, or gimmicky strat to kill Zerg. A management game is basically unwinnable.
Stop saying "weird cheese attempts." They aren't weird at all. He did his best to take out a Zerg in a series by throwing those in because going to late game is Zerg autowin.
Of course it is boxer and you can claim he was a "unorthodox" cheesey player in SC1 and say that's why he did his 2 rax, but it's just not the case.
Just to say it AGAIN...when you see these top pro Terran's doing these all-in two base gimicky strats and "timings" it's because they themselves also know that Zerg wins late game, so why go for a management when you're guaranteed a loss, when you can go for a gimmick that has the only chance of winning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
