Inca – I want to repay my parents - Your thoughts on making the finals? It feels amazing. Many fans wanted Nada to get to the finals, but I will make sure to show games that those fans can also enjoy in the finals.
- Did you have any difficulties preparing for this match? Nada practiced double for this match than regularly. So I was really nervous, but I came into this match knowing Nada’s play style and matched my strategies for that. I think my strategies played out well today.
- Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
- Did you predict that Nada would not be able to block them? When I practiced with Nada in the past, I focused 100% on macro-oriented play. I thought that he would not know about my usual all-in builds so I tweaked a couple of strategies I used in the past for today’s match.
- How about the last set? That was one of the builds that MC used against Marineking in the GSL world championships which failed. I tried to succeed where MC couldn’t by using the build. But it seems that the strategy was stopped before it even started.
- How were you able to turn around the game after that failure? I don’t really know. I knew that I was behind, but I also felt that I could also catch up. I basically got a lot of high templars and tried to stall out the game. I was confident that I could win the emp vs. feedback battle. And in the last battle, I got good psi storms so I was able to win.
- MC has become the standard to which protoss players are judged, what are your thoughts? In the past, I was more ahead… But now, he has already piled up a career to which I don’t know if I can catch up. I wanted to be the first protoss player to win (in the GSL) but MC was able to accomplish that first. After that, I tried to keep that out of my mind. Jealously makes a man bitter, so instead of focusing on his wins, I tried to focus on playing better.
- The difference between you and MC? MC is a former SCBW pro, so he has a great understanding of this game. In the past, I tried not to watch too many other protoss players play since I wanted to develop my own play style. And although I was really tempted to see MC’s games, I kept my perseverance and didn’t watch them, and further developed my own style. In the future, I hope to incorporate the good aspects of other players into my play.
- This will be your first finals. In my opinion, I think it has taken me too long to reach this stage. I thought I could do it during the open seasons of the GSL, but after those seasons, I haven’t had a lot of success. I have come all this way believing in myself, and I think that belief has finally paid off.
- Who do you want to face in the finals? To be honest I haven’t faced a zerg in 3 weeks. And in the LG special league preliminaries I lost to a zerg. But I will have 1 full week to prepare for the finals match and get used to the matchup. Plus with MC’s help I believe I can win against anyone, so I think both players will be ok.
- Any last comments? I want to thank prime’s Maka, Marineking, Polt, and my team’s Supernova, for helping me practice. The coach and our manager were able to arrange practice partners for me. I am thankful. A lot of my friends back from middle and high school keep calling me from their military service and I hope they stop calling so often. They keep calling and saying ‘play well.’ And they tell me they watch the games and call out my name. I just hope they have a good time in the military. I want to also thank my parents who were at first against me being a progamer. One day, I will repay my dues back to you. + Show Spoiler +
▼ 결승에 진출한 소감은? - 정말 좋다. 많은 팬들이 윤열이형의 결승행을 바랐을 텐데, 윤열이형과 팬들 몫까지 재밌는 경기로 보답하겠다.
▼ 경기를 준비하는데 어려움은 없었나? - 윤열이형이 평소보다 배로 준비하시더라. 그래서 많이 긴장했는데, 윤열이형 스타일을 잘 알고 있어서 맞춤 전략을 준비했다. 전략이 잘 맞아떨어졌던 것 같다.
▼ 오늘 선보인 것은 모두 맞춤형 빌드였나? - 클로즈베타 때 ‘잉카류’라고 해서, 저그전 밸런스가 엉망일 때 올인만 하던 시절이 있었다. 그 때 생각도 나고 해서 5세트 중 4세트를 올인 전략으로 준비했다.
▼ 이윤열이 못 막을 것이라 예상했나? - 윤열이형과 연습할 때 100% 운영 위주로 했다. 내가 주로 쓰는 올인 빌드를 잘 모를 것이라 생각해 예전부터 쓰던 전략을 수정해서 나왔다.
▼ 마지막 세트는? - 장민철 선수가 월드챔피언십에서 이정훈 선수에게 썼다가 실패한 빌드다. 민철이가 성공 못시킨 것을 내가 할 수 있지 않을까 해서 썼다. 역시 하기도 전에 실패했다.
▼ 실패했는데 어떻게 역전했나? - 그러게 말이다. 어느 정도 불리한 느낌이 들었는데, 메울 수 있다는 느낌이 들었다. 고위기사를 많이 뽑아 버텨보자는 식으로 했다. EMP 환류 싸움에 자신이 있었다. 마지막에 공격이 들어왔을 때 폭풍을 많이 써서 이길 수 있었던 것 같다.
▼ 장민철을 이을 프로토스로 평가받고 있는데? - 원래는 내가 더 빨랐는데…. 민철이가 내가 못 따라갈 정도로 커리어를 쌓았다. 프로토스 첫 우승은 내가 하고 싶었는데, 민철이가 먼저 했다. 그 때 이후로는 최대한 신경을 안 쓰고 있다. 질투는 사람을 밉게 만드는 법이기 때문에 내가 더 잘하면 된다고 생각한다.
▼ 본인과 장민철의 다른 점은? - 민철이가 스타크래프트1 출신이라 이해도가 높다. 내 스타일을 잃을까봐 다른 프로토스 경기를 잘 안 본다. 민철이 것은 보고 싶은 욕망이 많았다. 하지만 안보고 내 스타일을 고수하기로 했다. 나중에는 여러 선수들 장점을 흡수할 생각이다.
▼ 첫 결승 진출인데? - 내 기준에서 너무 늦게 오른 것 같다. 오픈 시즌 때 갈 수 있을 것 같았는데, 그 이후로 한 번도 못 이겼다. 내 자신을 믿고 달려왔고, 그 믿음에 대한 보답을 받는 것 같다.
▼ 누가 결승 상대가 됐으면 좋겠나? - 사실 저그전을 안한지 3주 정도 됐다. LG 스페셜리그 예선에서 저그한테 패했다. 그래도 1주일동안 연습해서 감 잡고 민철이의 도움을 받으면 이길 수 있다고 생각하기 때문에 두 선수 모두 할 만할 것 같다.
▼ 마지막으로 하고 싶은 말은? - 연습을 도와준 PRIME의 곽한얼, 이정훈, 최성훈, 우리팀의 김영진 선수에게 고맙다. 코치님과 감독님께서 연습 상대를 직접 구해주셨다. 감사드린다. 중고등학교 친구들이 군대에서 전화를 많이 하는데 안했으면 좋겠다. 자꾸 전화해서 ‘잘하라’고 한다. 선임이 방송 보면서 내 이름을 부른다고 하더라. 모두 군 생활 잘했으면 좋겠다. 게이머를 반대하셨던 부모님, 허락해주셔서 정말 감사드린다. 언젠간 꼭 보답해드리겠다.
Nestea – As the ‘zerg president’ I will repeat as champion. - Your thoughts on making the finals? As the first zerg player to make 2 finals, I am really happy. When I first saw the brackets at the round of 16, I thought my path to the finals would be easy if I wouldn’t have to face sC. But I am happy that I was able to beat him and advance.
- Why do you find sC difficult to face? I have faced him often on ladder and he was really good at cheese rushes. He isn’t someone who lets you alone to do what you want, so it becomes really hard to face him.
- How did you prepare for today’s match? To be safe, I tried to use pool first builds rather than going hatch. I didn’t want to lose without a fight. However, that kind of safe play also had some downsides. I was safe but I lost in economy so when he stopped his aggression, I was basically in an unfavorable situation.
- When did you know you had the win in the last set? In the last 1 minute of the game, I first thought that I had lost. But when I was able to get out infestors and his forces dwindled, then I saw that I could win.
- It seemed as if you were a bit less patient than usual. Facing sC can do that to you. He is really good at playing mind games. He puts you in many situations where you feel that you are not able to do what you want, then you feel like the situation is getting worse and worse.
- How did you practice? There was basically one day in between the games, so I didn’t get a lot of practice. But I was able to get some practice and studied builds together with Yoda, Happy, and MinseOk.
- How are you different from other zergs? I don’t think I am that different. But I have been told by my practice partners that I usually notice things quicker and have more drones and most people so I am able to switch between techs more easily.
- You will be facing a protoss in the finals. 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.
- Were the burrowed banelings something you specifically prepared for the 5th set? Originally, I prepared to be really precise on where I would put them, but after being down in the game, my baneling placements were not very good.
- Your ambition going into the finals? There is a lot of talk in the community who want a zerg to win this championship. As the ‘zerg president’ (**This nickname is similar to MC’s nickname in Korean just the first syllable changed to represent zerg), I will try my best to repeat my victory. I want to show that zergs can be powerful.
- Any last comments? I want to thank my teammates Yoda, Happy, and MinseOK for helping me practice. Horror really wanted to see T-ara, so I am happy I could fulfill that promise. Additionally, I want to thank my coach. I hope that many fans will show up in Daegu to cheer us on. I saw that Cocoshoo was cheering on sC so I was really happy about that. I hope she cheers on Inca in the finals.
▼ 결승에 진출한 소감은? - 저그로 두 번째 결승 진출을 처음으로 하게 돼서 기쁘다. 16강 대진을 봤을 때 김승철 선수만 아니면 올라갈 것 같았다. 김승철 선수를 이겨서 정말 기쁘다.
▼ 김승철을 어려워하는 이유는? - 래더에서 자주 만났는데, 치즈러쉬를 굉장히 잘한다. 상대를 가만히 내버려두질 않으니 굉장히 힘든 상대다.
▼ 경기는 어떻게 준비했나? - 안정적인 경기를 위해 앞마당보다 산란못을 먼저 가져갔다. 허무하게 지기 싫었다. 그것 때문에 말린 것도 많았다. 가난하고 안정적이지만 상대가 부유해졌을 땐 불리한 빌드였다.
▼ 마지막 세트에서 승리를 예감한 때는? - 마지막 1분. 계속 졌다고 생각했다. 상대 병력이 없어 감염충이 나온 뒤 이겼다고 생각했다.
▼ 평소보다 조급해보였는데? - 김승철 선수가 상대를 그렇게 만든다. 다전제에서 심리전을 잘한다. 내가 하고 싶은 대로 못하니 점점 꼬이게 된다.
▼ 연습은 어떻게 했나? - 하루밖에 시간이 없어 연습을 많이 못했다. 최병현, 안호진, 김민석 선수와 연습하고 빌드를 연구했다.
▼ 다른 저그와 본인의 차이점은? - 별로 다를 건 없어 보인다. 연습해주는 친구들이 말하길 남들보다 눈치도 빠르고 일벌레가 많아서 체제 전환이 수월하다고 하더라.
▼ 결승에서 프로토스와 맞붙는데? - 송준혁은 굉장히 잘하는 선수라고 생각한다. 지난 번 이정환 선수와의 대결을 준비할 때 징징댔지만 프로토스를 상대로 승률이 90%였다. 때문에 자신감은 있지만 송준혁 선수는 스타일이 다르니 어찌 될지 모르겠다. 결승까지 올라왔으니 기세를 이어 우승을 하겠다.
▼ 5세트 잠복 맹독충은 미리 준비한 것인가? - 원래 굉장히 타이트하게 이곳저곳에 준비했는데, 말리다보니 맹독충의 위치도 잘 파악하지 못했다.
▼ 결승전에 임하는 각오는? - 커뮤니티에서 저그가 결승에 가길 많이 원하더라. ‘저당당’으로 거듭날 수 있도록 열심히 하겠다. 저그도 강하다는 것을 보여주고 싶다.
▼ 마지막으로 하고 싶은 말은? - 연습을 도와준 최병현, 안호진, 김민석 선수에게 고맙다. 김효종 선수가 꼭 티아라를 보고 싶다고 했는데, 그 소원을 이뤄줘서 기쁘다. 감독님께도 감사드린다. 많은 분들이 대구에 와주셨으면 좋겠다. ‘코사신’님께서 ‘김승철 화이팅’을 외치더라. 기분이 좋았다. 이번엔 송준혁 선수를 꼭 응원해줬으면 좋겠다.
- Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
Lol, 4 all ins for a best of five, and people are still calling this guy a great player? He flat out admitted he was going to cheese out Nada, no matter what. 1 game or 2 in a Bo5 is fine, but 4?!
On May 08 2011 02:27 ch33psh33p wrote: Lol, 4 all ins for a best of five, and people are still calling this guy a great player? He flat out admitted he was going to cheese out Nada, no matter what. 1 game or 2 in a Bo5 is fine, but 4?!
Nada shall be avenged. and his body aswell.. but no other than our zerg hero Nestea!
- Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
I just. LOL. Oh, Inca. I like you; you're not afraid to admit that you were totally just going to keep cheesing. GOOD FOR YOU. XD
On May 08 2011 02:28 SushilS wrote: InCa:I remembered myself of past and prepared 4 all-ins for this best of 5 set match.
LOLWUT.
Glad it was a 3-0. It'd be a slur on NaDab to have played more than 3 games of this calibre....
To be fair, the last game when his all in failed he managed to transition out of it beautifully and ended up winning. So he is obviously capable of playing macro games and quite well (even though it was Nada's mistake that lost him that game).
just goes to show the differences between BW and SC2... Nada would have never lost to cheeses in a bo5 in BW, but you know in sc2 its totally viable, even on huge maps... Makes me rage that the better player (by far 100%) lost and the cheeser got in. I guess it represents sc2 well though because a cheeser/protoss player got in finals. Terran is very bad right now in most peoples opinion. I just got done watching Mondy stream vs Kas, and Kas just said that its ridiculous how a good zerg completly owns a terran. People QQ terran op only cause of 2 rax. On big maps its almost a free win for zerg.
On May 08 2011 02:27 ch33psh33p wrote: Lol, 4 all ins for a best of five, and people are still calling this guy a great player? He flat out admitted he was going to cheese out Nada, no matter what. 1 game or 2 in a Bo5 is fine, but 4?!
Whether you're a good player is measured by if you can win, not how you do it. He prepared these specifically for Nada and tricked Nada by playing macro games in practice. This is what good players do, and the fact is it would have been stupid to try and play a macro game because Nada was going builds that would put him at an advantage in a macro game, Nada was not properly preparing for all-ins and Inca exploited that.
A lot of my friends back from middle and high school keep calling me from their military service and I hope they stop. They keep calling and saying ‘play well.’ And they tell me they watch the games and call out my name.
- Any last comments? I saw the picture of Fruitdealer with Cocoshoo. I guessed that I would win this after I saw that picture. I want to thank him for that.
He's convinced that Cocoshoo is a bad luck charm lol.
A lot of my friends back from middle and high school keep calling me from their military service and I hope they stop. They keep calling and saying ‘play well.’ And they tell me they watch the games and call out my name.
Typo?
Yeah I was wonder about that too, it doesn't really make any sense.
With Mvp available I'm surprised he chose to practice with these 3 lesser known terrans. If he's telling the truth then these guys must be pretty good.
On May 08 2011 03:04 W2 wrote: With Mvp available I'm surprised he chose to practice with these 3 lesser known terrans. If he's telling the truth then these guys must be pretty good.
You guys really have to give Inca a lot more credit. He didn`t cheese Nada, he simply prepared GOOD all in strategies vs someone he practices with a lot. It`s not like he proxy 2 gates and cannon rushed his way to victory. If you watch the first 2 games, he really has a good understanding of Nada's thinking process as he gave 'hints' to Nada that he was doing X strategy so that Nada would do Y strategy. The taldarim altar game is a perfect example of that, when the units came in through Nadas front, you knew that he was NOT expecting that AT ALL. In the last game I feel that Nada lost the game as opposed to Inca winning it. I'm a big nada fan and I was hoping to see a nestea nada finals, as I think it would be more entertaining than an inca nestea finals, but these series go to show that it's not always the better player, or the one with the better mechanics who wins, as preparation has a lot to do with who wins the game. Now, Inca has the advantage in knowing Nada's playstyle and his thinking process as he practices with him a lot, and they are on the same team. He doesn't have that advantage against nestea and nestea will absolutely CRUSH him. The games will be pretty one-sided and for that reason I wish nada would've won.
On May 08 2011 03:04 W2 wrote: With Mvp available I'm surprised he chose to practice with these 3 lesser known terrans. If he's telling the truth then these guys must be pretty good.
On May 08 2011 03:04 W2 wrote: With Mvp available I'm surprised he chose to practice with these 3 lesser known terrans. If he's telling the truth then these guys must be pretty good.
Mvp seems to play a completely different style than sC anyways
On May 08 2011 03:04 W2 wrote: With Mvp available I'm surprised he chose to practice with these 3 lesser known terrans. If he's telling the truth then these guys must be pretty good.
Mvp seems to play a completely different style than sC anyways
- You will be facing a protoss in the finals. 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.
Lol.... What a baller. I wish zergs would complain a bit less though, it's a fair bit unbecoming. If you have a 90% winrate in the matchup, don't QQ about it -_-
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.
haha, gotta love pros. Even if they win a matchup 90% of the time, they want that 100%, even if they have to whine about imbalance to get it.
- You will be facing a protoss in the finals. 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.
Lol.... What a baller. I wish zergs would complain a bit less though, it's a fair bit unbecoming. If you have a 90% winrate in the matchup, don't QQ about it -_-
...who also play against him a lot. if Zerg play were as shaky and relaint on luck as many players imply, knowing a Zerg opponent better would mean players would win more against them rather than less. That this hasn't happened with Nestea is a solid indicator that, regardless of race, skill ultimately wins out.
Thanks for the interview, very clever gameplan by Inca there:
(...) So I was really nervous, but I came into this match knowing Nada’s play style and matched my strategies for that . When I practiced with Nada in the past, I focused 100% on macro-oriented play. I thought that he would not know about my usual all-in builds so I tweaked a couple of strategies I used in the past for today’s match.
Also this is a very interesting quote by Nestea:
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.
On May 08 2011 02:27 ch33psh33p wrote: Lol, 4 all ins for a best of five, and people are still calling this guy a great player? He flat out admitted he was going to cheese out Nada, no matter what. 1 game or 2 in a Bo5 is fine, but 4?!
He won, therefore making him a great player.
If Nestea won the finals only with 6 pools it would still make him a better player.
On May 08 2011 02:27 ch33psh33p wrote: Lol, 4 all ins for a best of five, and people are still calling this guy a great player? He flat out admitted he was going to cheese out Nada, no matter what. 1 game or 2 in a Bo5 is fine, but 4?!
He won, therefore making him a great player.
If Nestea won the finals only with 6 pools it would still make him a better player.
really that just means he yes, "won the series" like Rain "won the series" against NesTea in Open Season 3.
That doesn't have any barring or weight on whether he's the absolute _better_ or _greater_ player (at least imo so. Whatever.)
On May 08 2011 02:27 ch33psh33p wrote: Lol, 4 all ins for a best of five, and people are still calling this guy a great player? He flat out admitted he was going to cheese out Nada, no matter what. 1 game or 2 in a Bo5 is fine, but 4?!
Dude, he said he was playing to Nada's style which was 100% accurate. 1 Rax FE every single game? He deserves every all in he gets.
I really can't stand all the hate for Inca. He is a great player and has been for a long time, I think he's very fun to watch and his HT / Archon / Sentry play in the final game against NaDa was beautiful. The people saying they won't watch the finals because he is in them and whining about how he won need to grow up.
Also he was playing against his teammate so NaDa probably knew how to counter his standard play, he simply made smart decisions with the metagame in mind and it payed off. In game 3 NaDa was straight up outplayed.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Rain is still a great player. Keep in mind he almost removed Inca and has beaten some top level players (Note: NESTEA) despite relying almost completely on 2 base pushes or all ins. He is good at what he does.
Obviously Nada can't handle the early-game heat. InCa exploited that without letting it get to a maxed out game. Nothing wrong with that, Nada can learn something from it.
I agree that InCa's FF/Archon/Storm army was pretty sexy in the last game.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Rain is still a great player. Keep in mind he almost removed Inca and has beaten some top level players (Note: NESTEA) despite relying almost completely on 2 base pushes or all ins. He is good at what he does.
lol, did you even watch him play against nestea? EVERY single one of his wins were from scv all-ins, shut up he's not good and inca was very lucky to get this far himself
Rain is a joke right now and should be in code A, no surprise MVP picked him for an easy win
Inca "rules" bring us some whine to your cheese :D But I think it will be not so easy to fool Nestea, so I think he will remember his earlier past and will go for some macro games at least.
On May 08 2011 02:48 Sc2ttyl wrote: just goes to show the differences between BW and SC2... Nada would have never lost to cheeses in a bo5 in BW, but you know in sc2 its totally viable, even on huge maps... Makes me rage that the better player (by far 100%) lost and the cheeser got in. I guess it represents sc2 well though because a cheeser/protoss player got in finals. Terran is very bad right now in most peoples opinion. I just got done watching Mondy stream vs Kas, and Kas just said that its ridiculous how a good zerg completly owns a terran. People QQ terran op only cause of 2 rax. On big maps its almost a free win for zerg.
The better player of SC2 won. I hate this line of thinking
OAHGOGEHOEWHGOEAHGEHGGE NADA WAS SICK IN BW NOW HE LOSES THEREFORE GAME SUCKS.
No, hes playing SC2 not BW. It doesn't fucking matter how good you were in some other game. Just because they start with the same words, doesn't make it the same game. The WINNER is the BETTER PLAYER. Sure people could have off days and what not. But today/yesterday, the better player was INCA. INCA INCA INCA. MVP or MMA or Bomber probably wouldn't have lost to the cheeses. Inca knows Nada's play style and designed a game plan accordingly that will give him the best chance to win.
He won. Thats it. Also I don't understand how the whole TvZ thing relays here. It was a TvP. Not to mention we just had a TvT Code A finals (i think top 4 were T) and a TvT + PvP semis in the TSL. Code S had a TvP and a TvZ semis.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Rain is still a great player. Keep in mind he almost removed Inca and has beaten some top level players (Note: NESTEA) despite relying almost completely on 2 base pushes or all ins. He is good at what he does.
I understand what you're saying, but Rain is honestly not that good at what he does. Did you see his game vs. July in this GSL? He just did a really uninspiring, far-too-late all-in that managed to do almost nothing to July and completely destroy his chances of transitioning out. It was terribly planned and terribly executed. Maybe he was better back in GSL3 (I haven't seen his games from then), but I have no doubt that NesTea would 3-0 him now with the kind of play he showed against July.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
He was definetly better than nestea that day. If they played by your 10 min no rush rules Nestea might have won but they didnt.
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
So when Boxer just bunker rushed Yellow over and over again, clearly that meant he had no skill, right? Or when he just did an SCV all-in to take a finals?
Or what about Jaedong 4 pooling?
If you can't stop cheese, you deserve to lose to cheese. If you lose, you were the worse player that day. Anything else, and you get into IdrA-esque idiocy, arguing that skill is somehow independent of record.
Go IncA. Keep all-inning until it stops working. If your opponents aren't good enough to stop you, that's on them.
Go IncA. Keep all-inning until it stops working. If your opponents aren't good enough to stop you, that's on them.
Word. I don't get the hate. Maybe it's because I don't really care too much for Nada, but I thought it was hilarious personally. There's money on the line, and Inca's got balls and a brain; he knows what's at stake. Furthermore, I like his honesty in admitting that he totally would've gone for another all-in next. And he owned Nada in Game 3 straight-up, so clearly he can play a straight game. Was Nada having an off-day? Yes, definitely. But that happens to all of us, and it's just how it rolls.
I mean, yeah, I hope he doesn't all-in NesTea in the finals all the way to the gold, but if that's what he chooses to do, then more power to him. It's on NesTea's head to react properly to hold it off. (Which he can totally do, if his last few games say anything about his skill level.
Not to mention, 90% against Protoss is pretty damn sick.)
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
Lol, basically you made up some random criterion for skill. Why does the number of times someone wins with a strat relevant to their skill? Hell, I'd argue they're less skilled if they stop doing something that's working. -_-
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
Lol, basically you made up some random criterion for skill. Why does the number of times someone wins with a strat relevant to their skill? Hell, I'd argue they're less skilled if they stop doing something that's working. -_-
sigh, people legitimately arguing that scv all-ins takes skill makes me worried about the future of sc2
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
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.
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.
guess Boxer didn't deserve to beat Yellow then, huh?
so let me get this straight
if rain scv rushed his way through an entire tournament (which he did except in the finals against MC where he got stomped by the infinitely better player) and ended up winning he would be a legitimate champion and considered the greatest player of that season?
I'm sure all of us are eagerly anticipating the return of bitbybit
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.
wohoho oh my god this is the greatest post I've ever read.
guess Boxer didn't deserve to beat Yellow then, huh?
come on man, that is BW. it was actually hard to "scv all in" in BW... pretty sure thats the only scv marine rush ever because BBS is just better and just as all in
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
nestea is just as bad for LOSING to the SAME SHIT 3 times in a ROW you fucking moron.
if rain scv rushed his way through an entire tournament (which he did except in the finals against MC where he got stomped by the infinitely better player) and ended up winning he would be a legitimate champion and considered the greatest player of that season?
I'm sure all of us are eagerly anticipating the return of bitbybit
It would suck for spectators. But yes, if Rain won the tournament, and didn't cheat or break the rules of the tournament, then he would have been the best player of the tournament.
That's a different game, plus boxer's been cheesing before it was cool.
Boxer didn't invent cheese, or the SCV rush for that matter, and who cares if its a different games, its the exact same principle--it takes virtually no mechanical skill, just the saavy/balls/luck to go for it at the right time.
come on man, that is BW. it was actually hard to "scv all in" in BW... pretty sure thats the only scv marine rush ever because BBS is just better and just as all in
No, it really wasn't. Literally anyone in the world could practice for like 3 hours and execute an scv rush or a bunker rush. BW may have been harder in many respects than SC2, but pulling off incredibly simplistic early game cheese was not one of those respects.
I mean, what if a terran player, who did some 1 base allin every single game, and it worked. He won everything he competed in. He never lost a game, yet he still used an all in every single time. Be it 2 rax pull yo scv's, 7 rax marine, proxy raxes. None of his games ever made it to two bases. He would by far be the most succesful player, being undefeated in a BoX. Yet somehow I suspect people would still believe Idra was more skilled. That baffles me.
Also people saying it takes no skill to 2 rax allin, why on earth arent you demolishing every single zeg with it? Make GM league consist of 150 terran and 50 protoss, zergs could barely get to masters. Since everyone and their mom can 2 rax allin and win. Now that's not really true is it?
No, it really wasn't. Literally anyone in the world could practice for like 3 hours and execute an scv rush or a bunker rush. BW may have been harder in many respects than SC2, but pulling off incredibly simplistic early game cheese was not one of those respects.
so your point is even more worthless than ever? it takes 1-2 games to practice this all in in SC2, practicing for 3 hours is hard relative to that (which is obviously what i'm talking about)
point is its way more risky in BW, so it is a bad strategy anyway.
Also the person you quote in response with that video actually agrees with you and I, so what are you even talking about?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
lol at the amount of ignorance in this thread. inca clearly said 'i do nothing but macro games against nada in practice', and went the opposite way to squeeze out an advantage in games that actually matter. for that he gets railed on. grow up and read through an entire interview and try to get a feel about what the person is trying to convey before you go "OH CHEESE SCREW HIM MUST MAKE POST BELITTLING THIS GUY NOW."
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.
All-ins will be less effective when players get better. Most people, especially pros, have practiced certain all-ins more than their opponent has practiced defending them. It only makes sense to spend your practice time on long games that test a larger skillset, so when pro players face all-ins, it's likely not something they've encountered often.
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."
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.
Instead of whining, he's playing.
But anyway, recent statistics show Zerg > P in Korea at least. Ahead in the metagame some may say.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
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.
I think 1~2base timing rush and 'cheese' has to be defined differently when people talk about it. I don't know why the games less than 15min are considered 'horrible game' or 'dishonorable action' but it's not like he was abusing the game to faceroll a better opponent. Inca showed Nada only macro games to fake the style he was planning to use for the tournament.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
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.
The entire point of cheese is that is is hard to hold off and easy to pull off. Winning with cheese is less skilled than holding off cheese because of the difficulty involved. Macro games involve more skill because their are more decisions made throughout, where as with cheese there is relatively few decisions made. Failing to hold off cheese does not = being less good because of the very nature of cheese. The idea of macro games is that you can accomplish higher win rates over time if you are better, where as with cheese you are more likely to win a game against a better or equally good opponent because it makes the situation 50/50.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
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
People are confusing skill to mean "how often you win."
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.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
Or Zerg could go pool first, instead of hatchery. Don't know why but at that time, all the Zerg go hatch first, and see that it's the only viable choice.
Look at the ladder now and nestea, July games. Whenever Zerg suspect a cheese rush, he can go pool first because he know it's safe. Look at nestea, he gets smarter, knows when to pool first when to hatch first, not like his self a year ago. The same thing happens on ladder, a lot of Zerg choose to go pool first because they know they can hold off bunker rush and stuff while the scarified economy, although bad, but not as devestate as it used to seem.
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
- Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
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.
lol wat. anyways......>_> comon nestea! show us zerg can be strong, im expecting some fucking inspirational games.
On May 08 2011 12:37 ffadicted wrote: - Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
Why can't you respect them? Because they're doing what they must to win? This is a strategy game, not everyone has to follow the retarded "hour long macro game" rule. Those kinds of games are usually shit anyways.
On May 08 2011 12:37 ffadicted wrote: - Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
Why can't you respect them? Because they're doing what they must to win? This is a strategy game, not everyone has to follow the retarded "hour long macro game" rule. Those kinds of games are usually shit anyways.
No they're not. All-in games are bad. You're saying that the first two games between inca and nada were better then sc-nestea games 3 and 5? Give me a break. And I have no respect because they're trying to win easy. Sure, they're "doing what they gotta do", but I think it's the thing that separates sc2 from real sports, it's too volatile and it's too easy to "play dirty" with all-ins and win. It hurts the game itself when stuff like this happens. You can't claim the soon-to-be one sided Nestea vs. Inca finals will be anywhere as good for the GSL and sc2 in general then a NaDa vs. Nestea finals.
And before you say "inca won game 3 macro", then yes, obviously. Nada made big mistakes in that game, and it's normal, everyone does once in a while. However, because of all-ins, he was in a situation where inca had a huge amount of room for mistakes and nada didn't, and one or two silly mistakes (not getting ghosts, over committing to the nexus) cost him the entire series, instead of just one game in a bo5 because of cheesy all-ins.
On May 08 2011 12:37 ffadicted wrote: - Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
Why can't you respect them? Because they're doing what they must to win? This is a strategy game, not everyone has to follow the retarded "hour long macro game" rule. Those kinds of games are usually shit anyways.
No they're not. All-in games are bad. You're saying that the first two games between inca and nada were better then sc-nestea games 3 and 5? Give me a break. And I have no respect because they're trying to win easy. Sure, they're "doing what they gotta do", but I think it's the thing that separates sc2 from real sports, it's too volatile and it's too easy to "play dirty" with all-ins and win. It hurts the game itself when stuff like this happens. You can't claim the soon-to-be one sided Nestea vs. Inca finals will be anywhere as good for the GSL and sc2 in general then a NaDa vs. Nestea finals.
And before you say "inca won game 3 macro", then yes, obviously. Nada made big mistakes in that game, and it's normal, everyone does once in a while. However, because of all-ins, he was in a situation where inca had a huge amount of room for mistakes and nada didn't, and one or two silly mistakes (not getting ghosts, over committing to the nexus) cost him the entire series, instead of just one game in a bo5 because of cheesy all-ins.
Then what do you call MKP vs MC? Where MKP said he only prepared all-in builds because he said he wasn't confident in playing a macro game against MC? The only reason it didn't work out that way completely is because MC mixed a few all-ins and pressure builds that hit before MKP's did.
All-ins can provide entertaining games, as long as both players are sensible with their execution. There is no all-in right now in PvT that can't be stopped, inCa said he prepared those specifically because all he does is play macro games against nada.
It's really sad when the community needs to have a bitch-fit all the time about players who like to all-in in tournaments. Things would get really stale if all games were macro games.
Me personally, I find myself more entertained from people who develop/execute really well timed and planned out timing pushes and even more entertained by people who can hold them off rather then a game of both players dumping units back and forth.
To each their own I suppose. Props to Inca for being honest with himself.
Wow, Inca is being a boss with this interview. Of course they were all-ins, and they were the right decisions to make. He said that he only practiced macro against nada, so he all-ins, nada cuts corners, he wins. I can't believe all the hate that he is getting for playing to win the game. If I had a chance to get to the GSL finals and a cannon rush will get me there, I'm gonna do a damn cannon rush! Anyway, I'd bet a lot of the hate is coming from zerg players and nada fans, which while understandable that they are disappointed, does not warrant them calling him a "hack" or "dirty." Anyway, these people play to win the game, not to let your favorite player advance or for you to be entertained.
On May 08 2011 14:27 ampson wrote: Wow, Inca is being a boss with this interview. Of course they were all-ins, and they were the right decisions to make. He said that he only practiced macro against nada, so he all-ins, nada cuts corners, he wins. I can't believe all the hate that he is getting for playing to win the game. If I had a chance to get to the GSL finals and a cannon rush will get me there, I'm gonna do a damn cannon rush! Anyway, I'd bet a lot of the hate is coming from zerg players and nada fans, which while understandable that they are disappointed, does not warrant them calling him a "hack" or "dirty." Anyway, these people play to win the game, not to let your favorite player advance or for you to be entertained.
I agree - players shouldn't be blamed for playing to win -, but as a fan, I'd rather see solid macro games than all-in cheeses. A Nada-Nestea final would have been funner to watch.
On May 08 2011 14:27 ampson wrote: Wow, Inca is being a boss with this interview. Of course they were all-ins, and they were the right decisions to make. He said that he only practiced macro against nada, so he all-ins, nada cuts corners, he wins. I can't believe all the hate that he is getting for playing to win the game. If I had a chance to get to the GSL finals and a cannon rush will get me there, I'm gonna do a damn cannon rush! Anyway, I'd bet a lot of the hate is coming from zerg players and nada fans, which while understandable that they are disappointed, does not warrant them calling him a "hack" or "dirty." Anyway, these people play to win the game, not to let your favorite player advance or for you to be entertained.
He cheesed against Sangho and with his play against Rain, do you honestly think he deserves to be in the finals? It's similar to GSL3 where Rain was in the finals
I have nothing but respect for Inca, since I think the word "all-in" is blown out of proportion, but even then all someone needs to do is all-in once and they get slammed. SC had nothing but brilliant play leading up to the semis, and is now respected for it after a great series with Nestea, but before then he was getting slammed by the community for all-in'ing against fan-favourite Losira. But now that he's had a "difficult" and "close" series against a fan favourite where he lost, he's gained respect.
Calling it now:
If Inca beats Nestea, people will hate him. If Nestea beats Inca in a close series, he might gain a little respect. If Inca wipes the floor with Nestea, people will hate him.
Poor Inca, it's got to be hard being better than a fan favourite (in before someone tells me "the loser would have won if he hadn't have lost").
But now that I've said all that Inca stuff: glad Nestea gave SC the respect he's due. I don't care how you do it, but if you 3-0 Losira people should sit up and watch. I've been watching SC the entire series as my dark horse tip, and enjoyed, as Nestea noted, his mind-game play style.
I don't really understand why Inca has to feel ashamed for beating Nada tbh
It is not like all-ins are impossible to stop and even then; In the end you play the game to win. Why play to lose? I am sure inca is better in macro-gaming than any of you so whatever
Having that said; I hope nestea will win his 2nd title
I find that Inca's strategy to do all-ins is understandable. NaDa is his teammate so most probably he knows Inca's play style. It's not that all he can do are all-ins, it's just that he thinks that NaDa is too familiar with his standard macro game.
Still, because he eliminated NaDa, I want Nestea to crush Inca.
On May 08 2011 12:37 ffadicted wrote: - Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
Why can't you respect them? Because they're doing what they must to win? This is a strategy game, not everyone has to follow the retarded "hour long macro game" rule. Those kinds of games are usually shit anyways.
No they're not. All-in games are bad. You're saying that the first two games between inca and nada were better then sc-nestea games 3 and 5? Give me a break. And I have no respect because they're trying to win easy. Sure, they're "doing what they gotta do", but I think it's the thing that separates sc2 from real sports, it's too volatile and it's too easy to "play dirty" with all-ins and win. It hurts the game itself when stuff like this happens. You can't claim the soon-to-be one sided Nestea vs. Inca finals will be anywhere as good for the GSL and sc2 in general then a NaDa vs. Nestea finals.
And before you say "inca won game 3 macro", then yes, obviously. Nada made big mistakes in that game, and it's normal, everyone does once in a while. However, because of all-ins, he was in a situation where inca had a huge amount of room for mistakes and nada didn't, and one or two silly mistakes (not getting ghosts, over committing to the nexus) cost him the entire series, instead of just one game in a bo5 because of cheesy all-ins.
that's your opinion dude. the majority of players (less the steamy glasses TL elite) get excited over seeing nonstandard (cheese) play. why do you think BW got so popular? have you ever seen Boxer play? why do you think people get so excited about seeing gadget plays in the NFL?
this is a strategy game, not a sim-city game as idra might have you thinking. sometimes strategy > skill in this game. get over it already. even though i'd hardly classify myself as a casual player, even i can clearly see why most players would have a greater appreciation for seeing a clever build order or strategy than seeing how quickly a guy can build supply depots and barracks and command centers and spam aaaaa.
and fuck all the people comparing bitbybit to InCa. BitByBit scv marine rushed every game, which was a good strategy...... like the first time. After that it was predictable and showed how much of a dumbass he is. On the contrary, InCa's well crafted strategies (cheese if u wanna call it that) show how much thought he's put into the game.
and unlike TSL_Rain he actually deserves to be in the finals. he OUTPLAYED his opponents, while Rain got lucky that his opponents sandbagged. Re-watch the games, the stars aligned and most of his opponents sandbagged at the most crucial points.
On May 08 2011 12:37 ffadicted wrote: - Were all the builds you showed today made for Nada? 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.
Why can't you respect them? Because they're doing what they must to win? This is a strategy game, not everyone has to follow the retarded "hour long macro game" rule. Those kinds of games are usually shit anyways.
No they're not. All-in games are bad. You're saying that the first two games between inca and nada were better then sc-nestea games 3 and 5? Give me a break. And I have no respect because they're trying to win easy. Sure, they're "doing what they gotta do", but I think it's the thing that separates sc2 from real sports, it's too volatile and it's too easy to "play dirty" with all-ins and win. It hurts the game itself when stuff like this happens. You can't claim the soon-to-be one sided Nestea vs. Inca finals will be anywhere as good for the GSL and sc2 in general then a NaDa vs. Nestea finals.
And before you say "inca won game 3 macro", then yes, obviously. Nada made big mistakes in that game, and it's normal, everyone does once in a while. However, because of all-ins, he was in a situation where inca had a huge amount of room for mistakes and nada didn't, and one or two silly mistakes (not getting ghosts, over committing to the nexus) cost him the entire series, instead of just one game in a bo5 because of cheesy all-ins.
They do everything to win in real sports too, Suarez defending the goal with his hand in WC 2010 anyone? The incredibly dirty finals between Spain and Netherlands? The Italian national team's entire playstyle?. This is their living, they will do everything to win as long as they don't break the rules. Even in BW you have boxer SCV rushing Yellow, and the recent 4pool vs proxy Rax between JvF in an OSL/MSL finals.
Either way, if you didn't manage to scout and defend the all-in then you're the one to blame.
On May 08 2011 17:12 Dakkas wrote:
He cheesed against Sangho and with his play against Rain, do you honestly think he deserves to be in the finals? It's similar to GSL3 where Rain was in the finals
There's no such thing as cheese in PvP , it was 1 out of 3 games anyway, Sangho got thoroughly trounced in the previous 2 games. Yeah he did a 2base all-in against Rain, but Rain defended it and proceeded to win, then choked hard in the following game. A thing to note is that Inca did different all-ins every game, as opposed to Rain who did just one type, the marine SCV all-in. This shows that Inca did a great deal of preparation, while Rain even said he "didn't have much time to practice so I all-in'd".
On May 08 2011 11:40 `Forte wrote: People are confusing skill to mean "how often you win."
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.
It feels like Nada is in his BW niche where he isn't the best, but he manages to stay relevant forever.
I mean, NaDa hasn't been all that great since like 2007 in BW but he has the one of the best combinations of staying power and wins over time of all the great Progamers with the exception of maybe Boxer and Reach. He never really had a period where he completely crashed and burned except when he had his eye surgery and seemed really depressed.
I was really hoping Nada would make it to the finals I'm very disappointed by that he didn't. Now I just hope that Nestea can pull out the win amd doesn't lose by cheese.
On May 08 2011 14:27 ampson wrote: Wow, Inca is being a boss with this interview. Of course they were all-ins, and they were the right decisions to make. He said that he only practiced macro against nada, so he all-ins, nada cuts corners, he wins. I can't believe all the hate that he is getting for playing to win the game. If I had a chance to get to the GSL finals and a cannon rush will get me there, I'm gonna do a damn cannon rush! Anyway, I'd bet a lot of the hate is coming from zerg players and nada fans, which while understandable that they are disappointed, does not warrant them calling him a "hack" or "dirty." Anyway, these people play to win the game, not to let your favorite player advance or for you to be entertained.
He cheesed against Sangho and with his play against Rain, do you honestly think he deserves to be in the finals? It's similar to GSL3 where Rain was in the finals
Have you ever cannon rushed and won? It's hard kekekeke
On May 08 2011 14:27 ampson wrote: Wow, Inca is being a boss with this interview. Of course they were all-ins, and they were the right decisions to make. He said that he only practiced macro against nada, so he all-ins, nada cuts corners, he wins. I can't believe all the hate that he is getting for playing to win the game. If I had a chance to get to the GSL finals and a cannon rush will get me there, I'm gonna do a damn cannon rush! Anyway, I'd bet a lot of the hate is coming from zerg players and nada fans, which while understandable that they are disappointed, does not warrant them calling him a "hack" or "dirty." Anyway, these people play to win the game, not to let your favorite player advance or for you to be entertained.
He cheesed against Sangho and with his play against Rain, do you honestly think he deserves to be in the finals? It's similar to GSL3 where Rain was in the finals
There's no such thing as "deserving" to be in a place. In football (soccer) this happens all the time. One team attacks the whole game but can't find a breach in defense, fast forward to minute 90, defending team goes for a counter and scores. One commentator will go like "aww this is so bad, they didn't deserve to win" then the other one (correct one) goes "in football there's no such thing as deserving goals, there's only scored goals"
There's no such thing as "deserving to win", only a real win counts.
On May 08 2011 14:27 ampson wrote: Wow, Inca is being a boss with this interview. Of course they were all-ins, and they were the right decisions to make. He said that he only practiced macro against nada, so he all-ins, nada cuts corners, he wins. I can't believe all the hate that he is getting for playing to win the game. If I had a chance to get to the GSL finals and a cannon rush will get me there, I'm gonna do a damn cannon rush! Anyway, I'd bet a lot of the hate is coming from zerg players and nada fans, which while understandable that they are disappointed, does not warrant them calling him a "hack" or "dirty." Anyway, these people play to win the game, not to let your favorite player advance or for you to be entertained.
He cheesed against Sangho and with his play against Rain, do you honestly think he deserves to be in the finals? It's similar to GSL3 where Rain was in the finals
There's no such thing as "deserving" to be in a place. In football (soccer) this happens all the time. One team attacks the whole game but can't find a breach in defense, fast forward to minute 90, defending team goes for a counter and scores. One commentator will go like "aww this is so bad, they didn't deserve to win" then the other one (correct one) goes "in football there's no such thing as deserving goals, there's only scored goals"
There's no such thing as "deserving to win", only a real win counts.
Thank you.
I was sad to see Nada lose, but I actually liked Inca's answers in the interview. If you all-in because it's all you know how to do, then yeah, you're a very limited player and will only have success until people figure out how to stop your all-ins. If you choose to all-in because you know that your opponent isn't expecting it, isn't familiar with it, and you feel it's the best strategy, then that's more respectable imo.
If you think that all-ins don't have a place in SC2 or are too powerful, then that's a question of game design and balance. It isn't something you can blame the players for, because it's part of how the game works.
Hoping to see Inca play well in the finals -- I wasn't paying much attention to him up til now, so I haven't seen if he's really playing that well, and I'd like him to show how good he actually is. Definitely cheering for Nestea, but hopefully it will at least be an entertaining series.
The thing about all in is that is particularly easy to accomplish so thats why SC2 design encourages people to all in, and its even easier and rewarding to all in as protoss.
I'm sad to see Nada go because of all ins... Nestea vs Nada would have such a HUGE crowd
Isn't cheese only an excuse for people who can't play mid to late game? Is IncA that afraid of macro and economy management that he would proceed to all-in until he gets a huge lead? He seems confident in his unit control. NesTea needs to show superior build orders and techniques in order to defend in early game.
On May 12 2011 01:29 BoxersGosuGarden wrote: Isn't cheese only an excuse for people who can't play mid to late game? Is IncA that afraid of macro and economy management that he would proceed to all-in until he gets a huge lead? He seems confident in his unit control. NesTea needs to show superior build orders and techniques in order to defend in early game.
Common misconception... No, cheese isn't for players who can't play in the mid and late game.
If you know your opponent is weak to unorthodox plays or all-ins, you take advantage of that, there's really nothing in the game that can't be stopped with the right mix of micro, strategy and scouting.
If you can beat you're confident you can beat your opponent in 8 minutes, why take 20 and risk making a mistake somewhere in that time.
On May 12 2011 01:29 BoxersGosuGarden wrote: Isn't cheese only an excuse for people who can't play mid to late game? Is IncA that afraid of macro and economy management that he would proceed to all-in until he gets a huge lead? He seems confident in his unit control. NesTea needs to show superior build orders and techniques in order to defend in early game.
One thing that people are forgetting is that he didn't just go for cheese because he thought he would insta-lose in a macro game; remember that Ro4 was functionally an in-house game: InCa plays against Nada all the time and never uses all-ins; he was playing mindgames in the Ro4 to get an edge.
If you saw the games, Tastosis was shocked that InCa kept doing all-ins, because you normally sprinkle in one or two, but InCa was just relentless.
InCa has won plenty of macro games, including against MKP in the Up-and-Downs two GSLs ago, so don't dismiss him as a cheeser without thinking about the larger context of the games.
...and all that being said, at the end of the day he was 3-0 against Nada.
On May 08 2011 02:18 Phosgene wrote: - Did you predict that Nada would not be able to block them? When I practiced with Nada in the past, I focused 100% on macro-oriented play. I thought that he would not know about my usual all-in builds so I tweaked a couple of strategies I used in the past for today’s match.
I almost feel like this needs to be bolded, although I guess it won't change the raging Idra's mindset fans. *sigh*
Thanks for the translations <3 I'd been voting against Inca and still am going to, but the interview made me give him more respect now, and I'm going to pay attention to him more.
idk why in the first couple of pages people were bashing Inca.
It's like what MC said when he beat White-Ra in game 5 of DH and people were bashing him: He's a PROgamer, he plays to win and he plays to make money. Winning is winning.
Exploiting your opponents weakness is smart. Doing Macro games 100% of the time in practice with NaDa then doing all-ins in a tournament against him are great mind-games, and successful mind games are smart.
idk why all-ins are shamed upon, it's like what Bruce Lee said, play all styles, learn all styles. then make your own style. and clearly Inca is trying to find his own style as he said in the interview, not just be another clone.
What nada was doing was just economic cheese. He cut corners to get ahead in the late game and he paid for it. If he doesn't get rushed he has a huge advantage, so rather than be behind InCa exploited the weakness of the build order. If you can't respect the strategy that InCa used by exploiting his teammate's weakness then you're blinded by some false sense that only long macro games showcase the good players. If you don't want to lose to cheese play safer builds, and if you're really the better player your mechanics will carry you to the victory.
did all of you whiners stop to think that you are crying way more about nada getting cheesed than you should? i doubt getting cheesed is something nada is unused to. o and inca roflstomping 4-5 bunkers with archons and HTs was awesome.
On May 12 2011 01:29 BoxersGosuGarden wrote: Isn't cheese only an excuse for people who can't play mid to late game?
JD's double 4 pool says no.
Anyways, as one of Nestea's bigger fans I always enjoy his interviews. I wonder why people bash IdrA so much for "balance whining" when Nestea himself says things like "I've concluded ZvP is impossible on X'NF?"
i think nestea got this, Nestea has one of the best ZVP. The problem with other zerg is that they dont react fast enough and that is Nestea's big points. He plays safe and can tech switch according to opponent's army composition.
On May 12 2011 01:29 BoxersGosuGarden wrote: Isn't cheese only an excuse for people who can't play mid to late game?
JD's double 4 pool says no.
Anyways, as one of Nestea's bigger fans I always enjoy his interviews. I wonder why people bash IdrA so much for "balance whining" when Nestea himself says things like "I've concluded ZvP is impossible on X'NF?"
I don't know. IdrA just seems to attract all sorts of controversy and haters based off of his personality. Besides the point, I suppose Nestea is more accomplished and doesn't seem to have the tendency to make imba calls as much as IdrA (even though both Nestea and MVP admit that they are both whiners, heh).
As i didnt watched any BW at all i dont have the same respect for NaDa as everyone else seem to have, altough i still think hes a great player. But i don't really understand all this whine about InCa's all-ins (or anyones all-ins for that matter).
I enjoy watching both early all-in games as much as I enjoy macro-games.
If you cannot survive earlygame aggressions, cheeses, all-ins, or whatever, it doesnt matter how good ur lategame and macro is, because u dont deserve to get there, simple as that.
These guys are proffessional and WILL play to win, and the best player is the one who wins, not the one who is the prettiest to look at or has the better macro, micro, etc (altough these often coincides).
I come from a WC3-background and maybe that "clouds" my mind in most of these matters as SC2 and WC3 are 2 completely different games, but this is the way i look at it.
And so I ask the steamy TL elitists reading this thread...
If you could be the first SC2 bonjwa, win multiple GSLs/MLGs/[insert any big tournament here] but did so doing mostly all-ins and heavy pressure builds in favor of macro-oriented play, would you do it?
Inca does seem like a mini-MC, he has the same sort of confidence. He seems like an ok guy, and I wouldn't mind that he all-inned every game if it wasn't Nada that he has eliminated. What I do mind is that we're probably going to see more all-ins against Nestea, and I'm not sure I'll enjoy watching Nestea holding off cheeses and then preceding to automatically win games due to the advantage he has.
I like Nestea, he seems pretty humble, and his summary of the difference between him and other Zergs is pretty accurate. His play style isn't very unique, he just does it better than other players and that sort of seems like the mindset of the whole IM team, MVP is basically the same among Terrans.
On May 08 2011 02:28 SushilS wrote: InCa:I remembered myself of past and prepared 4 all-ins for this best of 5 set match.
LOLWUT.
Glad it was a 3-0. It'd be a slur on NaDab to have played more than 3 games of this calibre....
To be fair, the last game when his all in failed he managed to transition out of it beautifully and ended up winning. So he is obviously capable of playing macro games and quite well (even though it was Nada's mistake that lost him that game).
I honestly think nada lost that game more then he won it, he was sooo slow on the reaction for ghosts, but he was ahead or even on upgrades had more bases and a higher supply count he just got overconfident and thought he could dodge the storms i guess because he didnt start a ghost academy until he was already dead pretty much.
On May 08 2011 02:28 SushilS wrote: InCa:I remembered myself of past and prepared 4 all-ins for this best of 5 set match.
LOLWUT.
Glad it was a 3-0. It'd be a slur on NaDab to have played more than 3 games of this calibre....
To be fair, the last game when his all in failed he managed to transition out of it beautifully and ended up winning. So he is obviously capable of playing macro games and quite well (even though it was Nada's mistake that lost him that game).
I honestly think nada lost that game more then he won it, he was sooo slow on the reaction for ghosts, but he was ahead or even on upgrades had more bases and a higher supply count he just got overconfident and thought he could dodge the storms i guess because he didnt start a ghost academy until he was already dead pretty much.
People seriously needs to start to make a difference between "good" and "fun". I love macro-games as much as anyone, but I won't deny that I sometimes in the most sadistic of ways enjoy cheeses too. What I've shamefully discovered for myself is that the difference between when I go: "OMFG I WANT TO CRUCIFY BITBYBIT.PRIME AND F*CKING KILL HIS MOTHER AND RAPE HIS SISTER" and "OMFG THAT 6-POOL IS SO GODDAMN BEAUTIFUL I WILL DONATE ALL MY SAVINGS TO BUY A BEACHHOUSE TO FRUITDEALER" The difference is ofc bias, and yeah I realise it doesn't make my opinions logical but at least I realize it.
Inca pisses me off, i cant beleive he would cheese his own teammate 3 games in a row its pretty disrespectful. I guess he knows he wouldnt beable to beat Nada in 3 macro games though. He did beat nada in the only macro game they played, but nada was on tilt by then IMO and even though he was way ahead his delayed ghosts are what killed him, that and overcommiting to killing the nexus. If he had been patient it would have worked into his favor for sure.
Either way going out there planning to cheese your own team mate in every game in the semi finals, sounds like a bitbybit or TSL_Rain kind of move, the audience doesnt like it and its disrespecful to your team mate even though he won i think he probably lost more fans then he made after that. At least TSL rain felt bad about it afterwards and apologized unlike inca whos super stoked he won by cheesing his opponent =/
- You will be facing a protoss in the finals. 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.
Things like this make me scratch my head but at the same time reassure me that the more mature progamers out there will/have figured out what they need to do. Hopefully he will win so that all the whiners out there can have a more mature/better hero to look up to and follow.
On May 12 2011 07:30 isospeedrix wrote: Inca has Eunjung backing him up, while Nestea only has Jiyeon. Since Eunjung > Jiyeon, inca will take the finals.
In all seriousness, Inca will resort to a similar mindset where he will do exactly what nestea does NOT expect, to beat him.
On May 12 2011 07:30 isospeedrix wrote: Inca has Eunjung backing him up, while Nestea only has Jiyeon. Since Eunjung > Jiyeon, inca will take the finals.
In all seriousness, Inca will resort to a similar mindset where he will do exactly what nestea does NOT expect, to beat him.
In other words, cheese all his games?
Who cares if it's cheese. I am hoping he wins all that money, and he will laugh at all you cheese haters sitting on his bank of cash :D
On May 12 2011 07:30 isospeedrix wrote: Inca has Eunjung backing him up, while Nestea only has Jiyeon. Since Eunjung > Jiyeon, inca will take the finals.
In all seriousness, Inca will resort to a similar mindset where he will do exactly what nestea does NOT expect, to beat him.
In other words, cheese all his games?
Who cares if it's cheese. I am hoping he wins all that money, and he will laugh at all you cheese haters sitting on his bank of cash :D
And you can sit there whilst e-sports rot because nobody wants to pay to watch 3-5 minute long games every game.
Fuck you. As a constant costumer to GSL/Nasl I feel insulted by that obvious trolling, ok to dislike the haters but anybody can see that constant cheese is detrimental to the game when someone more skilled loses against a sudden cheese/allin which even if it is well executed takes less skill/effort than a macrogame. Yeah it takes some skill and yeah they'd beat anyone of us, but when the fanfavorite and the better player gets cheese'd to death that does not make it a fun sport to watch if it's an eternal trend.
Without the threat of an early attack of any kind games would get so boring. When I think of people who think that building 5 buildings and making an attack happen early in the game, like say 6:00, as cheese, I get a little disheartened.
Makes me think if they could their build order would be the following:
16 Command center 24 command center 32 command center at gold 40 command center 42 barracks.
Would you watch this game if every game had a meta-mandatory rule of sit back for 10 minutes while players amass 5 bases?
If I am Inca, and I see my opponent is trying to get a really early economy, Im gonna call this eco- cheese, your damn straight I am gonna apply some pressure to keep him honest. Would should Inca allow himself to be eco-cheesed?
On May 12 2011 07:30 isospeedrix wrote: Inca has Eunjung backing him up, while Nestea only has Jiyeon. Since Eunjung > Jiyeon, inca will take the finals.
In all seriousness, Inca will resort to a similar mindset where he will do exactly what nestea does NOT expect, to beat him.
In other words, cheese all his games?
Nag, 2 nexus before gateway, followed by a 3 base probes all in. Nested won't know what hit him!
On May 12 2011 07:30 isospeedrix wrote: Inca has Eunjung backing him up, while Nestea only has Jiyeon. Since Eunjung > Jiyeon, inca will take the finals.
In all seriousness, Inca will resort to a similar mindset where he will do exactly what nestea does NOT expect, to beat him.
In other words, cheese all his games?
Who cares if it's cheese. I am hoping he wins all that money, and he will laugh at all you cheese haters sitting on his bank of cash :D
And you can sit there whilst e-sports rot because nobody wants to pay to watch 3-5 minute long games every game.
Fuck you. As a constant costumer to GSL/Nasl I feel insulted by that obvious trolling, ok to dislike the haters but anybody can see that constant cheese is detrimental to the game when someone more skilled loses against a sudden cheese/allin which even if it is well executed takes less skill/effort than a macrogame. Yeah it takes some skill and yeah they'd beat anyone of us, but when the fanfavorite and the better player gets cheese'd to death that does not make it a fun sport to watch if it's an eternal trend.
Dude this isn't necessary. Calm down. I don't think anyone is arguing that constant cheese is amazing. I think the point is that the all-ins were specifically targeted due to Nada's playstyle.
You could blame Nada for not being prepared if you really wanted to be sadistic. I seriously doubt Inca will plan the same thing for the finals. Nestea would be expecting it.
On May 12 2011 07:30 isospeedrix wrote: Inca has Eunjung backing him up, while Nestea only has Jiyeon. Since Eunjung > Jiyeon, inca will take the finals.
In all seriousness, Inca will resort to a similar mindset where he will do exactly what nestea does NOT expect, to beat him.
Jiyeon is about 10x the women Eunjung is and you see that full on shoulder clutch Nestea had going on, uh huh, she was swoonin' in his arms I'll tell you what. Anyways Eunjung looks kinda like a boy too, just sayin'. Inca better hope he doesn't win lest that beastial creature take him back to it's decrepit lair for a victory, "surprise".
Don't get me wrong, I love Nestea big time - but why on earth was he complaining about ZvP when he had a retarded 90% win rate against them? Does he not know a lot of players look up to him (and thus quote him as evidence)? Adding more fuel to the PvZ imbalance myth is something I'm personally quite unhappy with =(
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
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.
On May 12 2011 11:13 Zealot Lord wrote: Don't get me wrong, I love Nestea big time - but why on earth was he complaining about ZvP when he had a retarded 90% win rate against them? Does he not know a lot of players look up to him (and thus quote him as evidence)? Adding more fuel to the PvZ imbalance myth is something I'm personally quite unhappy with =(
Maybe he felt like he needed to work to hard to defeat them compared to the toss? He prolly has his reasons
On May 12 2011 12:52 Audio wrote: Meh idk why people are hatting on inca for doing all-ins... I think protoss is a very timming based race. MC actually does a lot of all-ins..
I agree and also he did say he gets help from MC that leads me to believe they do play a similar style (both being from oGs and stuff).
Anyways, All-ins are apart of the game. He clearly stated Nada saw him play macro games every game they played before hand... Wouldn't you be prepared to play just macro games. Obviously Nada will be prepared next time.
INCA FIGHTING
(even though you lost me my liquidbet)
You know Nestea is going to be ready for anything... I hope the ogs house will prepare inca for the games of his life
On May 12 2011 07:30 isospeedrix wrote: Inca has Eunjung backing him up, while Nestea only has Jiyeon. Since Eunjung > Jiyeon, inca will take the finals.
In all seriousness, Inca will resort to a similar mindset where he will do exactly what nestea does NOT expect, to beat him.
Jiyeon is about 10x the women Eunjung is and you see that full on shoulder clutch Nestea had going on, uh huh, she was swoonin' in his arms I'll tell you what. Anyways Eunjung looks kinda like a boy too, just sayin'. Inca better hope he doesn't win lest that beastial creature take him back to it's decrepit lair for a victory, "surprise".
I had much more fun watching Nestea's semi-final, but dang it, I never expected Inca to beat Nada, so big props to Inca.
Somebody mentioned that Nada went 1-Barracks-Expand every game, something that leaves you open to all-ins. Nada didn't adapt and lost. As somebody mentioned earlier, it was very hard to stop the marine/scv rushes that for instance Rain used. Stopping what Inca did means you have to use a aggressive build, or a safer build. Anyway you have to stop relying on your risky macro build.
As far as I can remember, oGsMC used really risky (macro) builds in Code S and ended up on the up/down matches because of it. In the up/down matches he used much safer builds.
On May 12 2011 09:32 Probulous wrote: .... You could blame Nada for not being prepared if you really wanted to be sadistic. I seriously doubt Inca will plan the same thing for the finals. Nestea would be expecting it.
It's like when Nestea goes ahead and spine crawler rushes in the first game. It was AWESOME and tailored to fit his opponents style. Being able to go after your opponents weakness is a skill to awknowledge, not something to redicule.
On May 08 2011 05:04 Itsmedudeman wrote: so Rain and bitbybit were great players when they made their runs?
Are you implying that Rain and Bitbybit didn't use a strategy to beat their opponents?
They did beat some players using their strategy. They won. Won.
Now the OTHER players got better, and you can see why we don't see so much SCV all ins and 2-base all ins. Because the players GOT BETTER.
Nestea wasn't better than Rain when he lost to him. He was better after when he learned how to deal with his strategy. Its almost like no one in TL has every competed. How the hell do we establish skill in something if its not by who wins and who loses?
rofl you've got to be joking or trolling because that's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
Rain was better than nestea for abusing a strategy that literally took no skill to pull off? how do we establish skill? It's obvious, when you win straight up without doing a friggin scv rush 3 times in a row in the first 3 minutes of the game
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.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I2yJs.jpg)
NaDa vs. 
InCa![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u7QbV.jpg)
NesTea![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xWXa1.jpg)
