|
On November 06 2010 14:02 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Ah pretty sure Nada would disagree with you. Terran can play zerg late game just MOST don't know how like you, Boxer, and other "top" terrans very interesting. Who do you consider top? You? Boxer is the only top terran player who decided to do a gimicky all in strategy. I didn't see Fake boxer do it, didn't see Nada do it, don't see Drewbie/QXC do it. I mean wow so 1 top terran does it means your right! No just learn to play your race rather then complain imba in every single post you make on these forums.
|
TvZ is quite balanced atm, I think Boxer's TvZ isn't as good so he's qq-ing.
|
On November 06 2010 14:02 avilo wrote:
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.
Yup, this is probably why Boxer went for "cheese." He didn't have any other option.
On November 06 2010 14:02 avilo wrote:
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.
^^^
QFT. Why don't the biased Zerg players get this? Of course they don't get it and will never get it - they don't want Zerg to be nerfed, LOL.
On November 06 2010 14:02 avilo wrote:
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.
Avilo, you will never convince the biased Zerg players. They will never admit it publically because they know that admitting it publically can lead to a nerf for Zerg in the next patch. Sadly, while they won't admit it publically, they know that what you say is 100% true.
|
Boxer is the only top terran player who decided to do a gimicky all in strategy. I didn't see Fake boxer do it,
What Foxer does is very gimmicky. It's definitely not safe and solid play. I mean all marines versus banelings? If the Zerg gets any infestors you're completely screwed. Now I wouldn't say all of his builds were "all-in" but certainly some of them were definitely close to it. Especially that game when he brought scvs on the push, if he didn't do major economy damage he was going to lose, he didn't and he indeed lost.
|
If it wasnt safe and solid Moskau, we would see it fail against the zerg he played against, but it is. Even if the zerg gets infestors the key is not letting your mariens ever get into a ball, he basically makes everything its own seperate platoon unit. And Im sure that foxers play is good enough that he can focus infestors and all that.
|
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.
I am so tired of biased opinions. Zerg's economy worst for 10 minutes into the game?
The fact that Zerg can blindly go 14 hatch makes Zerg economy insanely strong.
A good recent example is game2 of Boxer against Nestea.
Boxer kills an insane amount of drones. Nestea just defends with Queens, and poof ends up with 65 drones the moment the hellions are destroyed.
The mule is imba fairytale has been shattered some time ago.
Zerg has better unit macro abilities, better worker macro abilities, a macro ability that can actually attack, and a mobile scouting dropship for 100 minerals.
Try to compare this to the static scouting for Terran from 350 minerals for a mule.
The reason Boxer went proxy rax, was because he tried a normal game and lost decisively.
Tried a fast expo build and lost decisively.
Then he tried to do a proxy because the other strategies obviously did not work.
|
Zerg needs to FE to be on same page with the other race. same as it was in BW.
to be honest, people that are arguing against foxers play and saying it's gimmicky and thats the only way you can win is ridiculous
first off, foxer stated in an interview that he likes to go marines just to SHOW that marines can counter banelings.
It's not like that is the only way he will play TvZ, I'm sure he can have stronger TvZ against the infestor play nestea will most likely do anyway.
Honestly though, try and play a macro TvZ, and practice. I understand that zerg has an advantage at the moment because people still need to adapt, but really, get with it.
|
If it wasnt safe and solid Moskau, we would see it fail against the zerg he played against, but it is. Even if the zerg gets infestors the key is not letting your mariens ever get into a ball, he basically makes everything its own seperate platoon unit. And Im sure that foxers play is good enough that he can focus infestors and all that.
Just because he's winning with it for now does not mean it's safe and solid. New strategies can catch opponents off guard and they don't always know how to respond. Personally I don't think this strategy will work forever, and that it's merely a gimmick for now until someone figures out a good response. There are plenty of unsafe builds that people can pull off and be very successful with.
|
On November 06 2010 14:12 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 14:02 avilo wrote: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. Lol this is so wrong. Nada is not plaanning to play long macro games in tvz, and which the terran players defensively, and let the zerg gets a strong economy, because then he would lose basically all tvz. In beta when tanks gave 60 dmg alot of terrans tried this turtling style, and some succes doing it. But while the ultra got buffed and tanks nerfed, it become impossible to do. 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. Ah pretty sure Nada would disagree with you. Terran can play zerg late game just MOST don't know how like you, Boxer, and other "top" terrans very interesting. Who do you consider top? You? Boxer is the only top terran player who decided to do a gimicky all in strategy. I didn't see Fake boxer do it, didn't see Nada do it, don't see Drewbie/QXC do it. I mean wow so 1 top terran does it means your right! No just learn to play your race rather then complain imba in every single post you make on these forums.
|
Who would have thought a month ago that it would be Terran's jumping the UP train? ^^ In general in these discussions there is WAY to much talk of auto-loss and such. When Morrow's 5raxreaper first came out it was said to be completely unblockable, nothing you can do against it, always at a disadvantage etc. Even before the patch zergs figured it out and managed to deal with it. People are resourcefull, and Starcraft (2) is a complex game. Stop saying shit is autolose because people didnt figure it out in the few weeks after a patch, and especially when "people" is a very small sample.
|
On November 06 2010 19:11 Promises wrote:
Who would have thought a month ago that it would be Terran's jumping the UP train? ^^ In general in these discussions there is WAY to much talk of auto-loss and such. When Morrow's 5raxreaper first came out it was said to be completely unblockable, nothing you can do against it, always at a disadvantage etc. Even before the patch zergs figured it out and managed to deal with it. People are resourcefull, and Starcraft (2) is a complex game. Stop saying shit is autolose because people didnt figure it out in the few weeks after a patch, and especially when "people" is a very small sample.
What's wrong with you ? Zerg players didn't figure out how to beat siege tanks, BC and reapers, Blizzard nerfed them into oblivion like they nerfed HSM during BETA.
Bring back HSM and BC beta style, tanks with 60 core dmg and reapers as they were before the senseless nerfs, and you will see who is going to complain.
|
One day people will shutup about balance. One day.
*rocks back and forth*
|
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.
Who has 90 workers at 10 mins? let alone 70? If you let a zerg macro that hard you did something wrong.
|
On November 06 2010 21:14 Sniffy wrote:
One day people will shutup about balance. One day.
*rocks back and forth*
There there.
I would like to shut up about balance too, but right now Protoss needs some help. Or at least a champion.
|
I hope he doesn´t go random, hopefully the state of TvZ isn´t that bad.
Of course it would be great to have a high level random but BoxeR... no, I´d rather keep him as the Terran icon. Well coming patches will tell.
|
On November 06 2010 13:49 StarcraftMan 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. 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).
Who ignored anything? Again, watch the income tabs of pro games, thats all I'm asking. For the most part terran mine minerals at higher rate than zerg while zerg has more gas. Its been this way since beta, it didn't make zerg OP then, it certaintly doens't make them OP now. It works because zerg requires almost pure gas units to counter MMM.
|
I'm personally sick of reading about this imaginary "12 minute mark" where terran suddenly sucks and protoss suddenly dominates. A lot of protosses are experimenting with fast expand builds and tech heavy builds and many (if not most) of the terrans I see on ladder are sticking to their hard-and-fast 1 base-- be it three rax, 2/1/1, 1/1/1 tech build-- or hard-and-fast low tech + expansions plays.
What I'm saying is it's the popular play styles that are creating this imaginary threshold, not the game. The one base timing attacks I speak of always occur between 9-11 minute. They are all in, so when they fail, of course the terran should lose after the 12 minute mark! It's not some magic number.
I think the problem is a lack of creativity in the tvp mindset. Very few players approach the game like a gretorp does-- going for fast ghosts to nullify sentries and thereby make the collossus/stalker/sentry ball CONSIDERABLY weaker or possible making the zealot/ht/sentry combo INSTANTLY WORTHLESS. Most of them simply want to spam the A and D keys, tech to medivacs and run their opponents over.
And when that doesn't work, they blame the game instead of this imaginary bind to only be able to create a handful of unit types.
The only thing to take away from this 12 minute idea is this: mauraders get weaker in larger numbers and against well-positioned tier 3 compositions. Possible solution: Stop massing ONLY mauraders throughout the entire game perhaps?
|
On November 06 2010 02:54 Hammurabio wrote:Zerg starts with an Overlord. Maybe you don't know enough about the game to suggest balance changes?
Maybe you didn't read the whole post saying they shouldnt have an overlord at the start, which is an advantage over the two others race.
Terran golden age is over. Realize that, now it's a poor race which sucks hard, especially against zerg at any moment of the game.
|
I've just gotta say, this is quite possibly the most hilarious thread on the entirety of TL.
I mean, wow. Don't get me wrong, plenty of Zerg have thrown out the QQ without the most solid data behind it [myself included], but Terrans are still dominating the tournament scene completely. There is rock-solid EVIDENCE of that in this very thread. Boxer's TvZ is obviously some of the worst in the entire pro scene atm. And lastly, Foxer has started to demonstrate the massive potential of the Marine with great micro behind it.
Are there people that really want Terran to return to their complete and utter insanity at launch?
|
On November 06 2010 23:21 JTWStephens wrote:
I've just gotta say, this is quite possibly the most hilarious thread on the entirety of TL.
I mean, wow. Don't get me wrong, plenty of Zerg have thrown out the QQ without neccesarily the most solid basis behind it [myself included], but Terrans are still dominating the tournament scene completely. There is rock-solid EVIDENCE of that in this very thread. Boxer's TvZ is obviously some of the worst in the entire pro scene atm. And lastly, Foxer has started to demonstrate the completely insane potential of the Marine with great micro behind it.
Are there people that really want Terran to return to their complete and utter insanity at launch?
Actually, if you compared the overall Zerg player base (20-25%) and their ratio at the top diamond/at the GSL, you would realize that they are totally over-represented.
If you looked at the average point of a Diamond Zerg player in BNet, you would realize that it is 200 points higher than Protoss/Terran.
If you looked at the win ratio of Zerg at GSL, you would realize that it is the race with by far the highest one, along with being the only one with a +++50% win ratio in every single MU.
So basically, you're just pretending to have rock-solid evidence of a lie.
You can keep on lying and pretend that a new Zerg bonjwa is born each time one of you wins the GSL if you like... But this rethoric wouldn't stand very long.
Foxer strat is a failure against early infestor, and he is going to be massacred in the final. Everybody knows that, including you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
