EPT
[Int] GSL Code S Semifinal Winners - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
LeatherGracket
Sweden52 Posts
| ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
Rain won because people WERE NOT good enough to stop his all-ins. He was better than them. This doesn't sit well with me. Defending 2rax at the time was considered ridiculously hard, it was considered that it wasn't possible to do and come out ahead, hell even Dustin Browder in an interview said they were contemplating some nerfs if the situation didn't get better soon. He was the winner, yes, but the better player? Hmm, nope. I think also at the time, NesTea challenged anyone to beat his two rax as a Zerg and no one manage to do it. | ||
|
godemperor
Belgium2043 Posts
On May 08 2011 08:09 mprs wrote: I think I'm about to have an aneurysm. Boxer's SCV rush worked because it was UNEXPECTED. It worked 3 times because it was unexpected 3 times. The reason why it was cool is because SCV all-ins are BAD if they are even in the opponent's head. In BW, EVERYONE was good enough to stop SCV all-ins, so it was considered "hard". Rain won because people WERE NOT good enough to stop his all-ins. He was better than them. Once they learned how to deal with all-ins, they became rarer because it was a loss most of the time. Why did Inca's work? Because like Yellow, Nada was not expecting an all-in because his practice vs Inca was macro games. So Inca prepared 4 all-ins, like Boxer, because he knew that Nada would not expect it, like Yellow. The better the players become, the weaker all-ins become. Nada lost because he was not good enough to win. Inca looked at his strategic options and chose the best course of action, and it worked beautifully. Agreed, wonderfully argued. Prior to InCa's game with Killer (In which he used aggressive 4 gate) , InCa never was the attacker in a PvP, instead usaully opting for 3 gate robo or blink. InCa played in the way that his opponent expected the least, and he succeeded. On May 08 2011 08:17 Dommk wrote: This doesn't sit well with me. Defending 2rax at the time was considered ridiculously hard, it was considered that it wasn't possible to do and come out ahead, hell even Dustin Browder in an interview said they were contemplating some nerfs if the situation didn't get better soon. He was the winner, yes, but not the better player? Don't think so. 2 rax are not as common now because people are better at dealing with them and the only thing that has changed is a small increase in bunker build timing (even before the increase 2 rax was not as effective), people are just now much better at countering 2 rax now. | ||
|
jaiiiii
United States72 Posts
| ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
I think Inca is a really good player. I know I complained a lot previously about ZvP matchups when I faced Anypro,but in practice I was win rate against them were around 90%, so I have some confidence in the matchup. However, Inca’s style is so different that I don’t know what to expect. Since I have made it to the finals, I will try to ride my momentum and take the championship. Oh?! I wonder what NesTea is doing different these days 2 rax are not as common now because people are better at dealing with them and the only thing that has changed is a small increase in bunker build timing (even before the increase 2 rax was not as effective), people are just now much better at countering 2 rax now. It took a long time for that to happen, almost a month and a half. Rain wasn't a better player, at the time it was just considered very difficult to defend it, even if you knew it was coming. | ||
|
`Forte
United States128 Posts
Besides, Inca was playing for thousands of dollars against an opponent who he usually loses to in longer games. If he didn't try all-ins that he had a better chance of winning with, he'd be silly. It's like a tennis player saying, "I can serve at 140mph and my opponent's faster and has better forehands and backhands than me, but it's not fair for me to give him a hard serve and it's not fun to watch me ace him all day, so I'll do a slow serve." although, mqrs's analogy was infinitely better. | ||
|
FataLe
New Zealand4526 Posts
On May 08 2011 08:24 Dommk wrote: Oh?! I wonder what NesTea is doing different these days It took a long time for that to happen, almost a month and a half. Rain wasn't a better player, at the time it was just considered very difficult to defend it, even if you knew it was coming. Instead of whining, he's playing. But anyway, recent statistics show Zerg > P in Korea at least. Ahead in the metagame some may say. | ||
|
FataLe
New Zealand4526 Posts
On May 08 2011 07:31 mprs wrote: Lets say we are in a dick waving competition. And I was sick at dick waving. My dick is waved at a frequency double the amount of my competitor. The trajectory was a perfect oval, the speed was blazing, and I won the dick waving contest. Despite my win, here you are saying "well look this other guy, he had a much bigger dick." Well that is wonderful, I'm sure his wife is absolutely ecstatic about his abnormally large dick, and it would make for many entertaining nights. In fact, I bet his wife would be much happier than my wife. But you know what? I was waving my dick like no other and I won the dick waving contest. Completely agree. Hilarious. | ||
|
Coldviolet
United States110 Posts
| ||
|
godemperor
Belgium2043 Posts
lol, how did i miss this gem. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
| ||
|
Maghetti
United States2429 Posts
| ||
|
biskit
Australia355 Posts
| ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
On May 08 2011 07:58 izgodlee wrote: nestea is just as bad for LOSING to the SAME SHIT 3 times in a ROW you fucking moron. wow I can't believe people are THIS dumb and still post you know how indefensible an scv rush was back then? you could expect it would happen 100% and you would NOT be able to beat it, how the hell do you think bitbybit even got to the round of 32 in GSL when that's ALL he did EVERY time and EVERYONE knew it the only reason he didn't advance further was because his micro is so god awful and he's so talentless that he couldn't pull it off hey, I have literally ONE strategy and all I do is a move my shit with scvs buffering and I win I'm better than those players who could completely SMASH me in any game that lasts longer than 5 minutes, I'm the better player cheese should be used, but holy shit when it's the only strategy you have you should be considered an awful player, how are people defending this? I suppose a game where you can literally win with 1 skilless strategy is an ideal game for people still in bronze after a thousand games | ||
|
Pwnographics
New Zealand1097 Posts
| ||
|
`Forte
United States128 Posts
Starcraft II is a test to see if you can beat your opponent. To beat your opponent you have to use skill, but being overall more skilled doesn't equate to winning. Going back to the tennis example: you can have great speed, agility, and stamina, have the most precise cross court shots, and have amazing approaches for volleys, but if you're awful at returning serves, you'll have a hard time winning games. It doesn't matter that you're overall much more skilled than your opponent--you can easily lose if that part of your gameplay isn't good. Sure, having good late-game macro and multitasking skills is important, but they don't matter if your opponent decides to all-in and you have no clue how to react. That can just as well make you win or lose the game even though it requires a smaller skillset than winning/losing at the 30 minute mark. Players like BitByBit or Rain who all-ined their way through GSL weren't necessarily more skilled simply because they won, and they weren't better players because they won. But they were the winners, and at the time, that's what matters. I think Inca deserves more credit though. He regularly played Nada in "macro" games and lost most of them, and he knew that all-inning would get him a better chance of success. When you're up against a player who's better than you with thousands of dollars on the line, you don't just hand up the prize and say, "You're more skilled than me so you should advance." You try to abuse everything you can to win. | ||
|
Striding Strider
United Kingdom787 Posts
Please some long, fun games. =) | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On May 08 2011 10:19 Itsmedudeman wrote: wow I can't believe people are THIS dumb and still post you know how indefensible an scv rush was back then? you could expect it would happen 100% and you would NOT be able to beat it, how the hell do you think bitbybit even got to the round of 32 in GSL when that's ALL he did EVERY time and EVERYONE knew it the only reason he didn't advance further was because his micro is so god awful and he's so talentless that he couldn't pull it off hey, I have literally ONE strategy and all I do is a move my shit with scvs buffering and I win I'm better than those players who could completely SMASH me in any game that lasts longer than 5 minutes, I'm the better player cheese should be used, but holy shit when it's the only strategy you have you should be considered an awful player, how are people defending this? I suppose a game where you can literally win with 1 skilless strategy is an ideal game for people still in bronze after a thousand games | ||
|
ffadicted
United States3545 Posts
In the closed beta, when the zerg balance was completely broken, I called it “Inca rule” where I used all-ins every game. I remembered myself of past and prepared 4 all-ins for this best of 5 set match siiiiiiiiiiigh, I just can't respect players like this. Obviously they want to win and it's not like they're cheating, but I just can't. Nestea 4 - 1 in yet another dissapointing GSL finals imo. Looks like sc vs. nestea will remain the "real" GSL May finals. | ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
lol wat. anyways......>_> comon nestea! show us zerg can be strong, im expecting some fucking inspirational games. | ||
| ||
