|
On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times.
It also means that it isn't impossible to make work. I would say that Parting counts as on the high end of the skill ladder.
|
On September 23 2014 12:08 jojos11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 10:40 FabledIntegral wrote:
They need to readd the siege mode upgrade, make the splash radius bigger, and add +shields dmg. Biggest downside is that they become notably stronger vs roach/hydra style, but we could also take back their increased fire rate.
They aren't supposed to be rapid fire, minor damaging units imo, but rather hard hitting, slow firing. Makes it more positional based and punishing if the enemy accidentally gets in range. by removing siege mode upgrade zerg will just roach allin every game & win..
The roach allin isn't any different than in WoL?
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On September 24 2014 14:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. It also means that it isn't impossible to make work. I would say that Parting counts as on the high end of the skill ladder.
Speaking about ladder - by my observations maybe 1/3 of Terrans against me, when I play storm first, go autopilot mode 4 medevacs into vikings when they see the robo  (I play 1gate robo some gates into storm, the most typical opening). So, yeah, you have around 33 % of autowins if you hit proper timing ;-) It is just estimated guess ;-) I asked a friend of mine in masters to do the same, he guessed around the same.
|
On September 24 2014 15:05 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 12:08 jojos11 wrote:On September 23 2014 10:40 FabledIntegral wrote:
They need to readd the siege mode upgrade, make the splash radius bigger, and add +shields dmg. Biggest downside is that they become notably stronger vs roach/hydra style, but we could also take back their increased fire rate.
They aren't supposed to be rapid fire, minor damaging units imo, but rather hard hitting, slow firing. Makes it more positional based and punishing if the enemy accidentally gets in range. by removing siege mode upgrade zerg will just roach allin every game & win.. The roach allin isn't any different than in WoL?
The difference being that in WoL siege tanks were standard play. I wasn't aware of a roach bane allin in WoL (knew a few roach allins though).
In other news, I was curious when Golden beat MMA to see if he had any top secret tech. Wasn't sure if he was doing the swarmhost style or what. Watched the games...roach bane allin every game.
|
On September 24 2014 16:36 metroid composite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 15:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 23 2014 12:08 jojos11 wrote:On September 23 2014 10:40 FabledIntegral wrote:
They need to readd the siege mode upgrade, make the splash radius bigger, and add +shields dmg. Biggest downside is that they become notably stronger vs roach/hydra style, but we could also take back their increased fire rate.
They aren't supposed to be rapid fire, minor damaging units imo, but rather hard hitting, slow firing. Makes it more positional based and punishing if the enemy accidentally gets in range. by removing siege mode upgrade zerg will just roach allin every game & win.. The roach allin isn't any different than in WoL? The difference being that in WoL siege tanks were standard play. I wasn't aware of a roach bane allin in WoL (knew a few roach allins though). In other news, I was curious when Golden beat MMA to see if he had any top secret tech. Wasn't sure if he was doing the swarmhost style or what. Watched the games...roach bane allin every game.
you don't need siege tanks to begin with
e.g.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 24 2014 17:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 16:36 metroid composite wrote:On September 24 2014 15:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 23 2014 12:08 jojos11 wrote:On September 23 2014 10:40 FabledIntegral wrote:
They need to readd the siege mode upgrade, make the splash radius bigger, and add +shields dmg. Biggest downside is that they become notably stronger vs roach/hydra style, but we could also take back their increased fire rate.
They aren't supposed to be rapid fire, minor damaging units imo, but rather hard hitting, slow firing. Makes it more positional based and punishing if the enemy accidentally gets in range. by removing siege mode upgrade zerg will just roach allin every game & win.. The roach allin isn't any different than in WoL? The difference being that in WoL siege tanks were standard play. I wasn't aware of a roach bane allin in WoL (knew a few roach allins though). In other news, I was curious when Golden beat MMA to see if he had any top secret tech. Wasn't sure if he was doing the swarmhost style or what. Watched the games...roach bane allin every game. you don't need siege tanks to begin with e.g. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liN4t0_bCDo
One thing to note though: In WOL terran relied on hitting a critical before-hive timing, and could be outmatched economically and in terms of army-size at that point in time. Today, the balance revolves around terran and zerg being closer to each in terms of army value and economy, and thus I believe terran feel forced to play somewhat greedier in HOTS.
|
On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times.
Actually, that's exactly what viable means. That is LITERALLY the definition of viable.
vi·a·ble
/ˈvīəbəl/
adjective
adjective: viable
capable of working successfully; feasible.
If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable.
|
On September 24 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. Actually, that's exactly what viable means. vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ adjective adjective: viable capable of working successfully; feasible. If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable.
Much like most people on this thread, to them viable means that any Joe Schmo can do it and now it is standard play that we can expect from Protoss without even scouting.
Heck, had someone argue a few pages back that unless an overlord scout spots it before aggression happens it is cheese. People don't like having to actually look for what the opponent is doing.
It's a silly notion. But yes, if the top protosses can do it then it is viable.
|
On September 24 2014 22:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. Actually, that's exactly what viable means. vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ adjective adjective: viable capable of working successfully; feasible. If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable. Heck, had someone argue a few pages back that unless an overlord scout spots it before aggression happens it is cheese. People don't like having to actually look for what the opponent is doing.
That's not what he said. He said that if it hits before an overlord can cross the map it is cheese, aka if it hits very early.
Dunno why I'm responding to you either because you're so full of shit and constantly misrepresent things.
|
On September 24 2014 22:55 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 22:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 24 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. Actually, that's exactly what viable means. vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ adjective adjective: viable capable of working successfully; feasible. If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable. Heck, had someone argue a few pages back that unless an overlord scout spots it before aggression happens it is cheese. People don't like having to actually look for what the opponent is doing. That's not what he said. He said that if it hits before an overlord can cross the map it is cheese, aka if it hits very early. Dunno why I'm responding to you either because you're so full of shit and constantly misrepresent things.
In my book, not worker scouting is greedy. That overlord scouting crap is just a way for greedy players to write off their losses as cheese without having to deal with the fact that they were greedy.
Sure, 'standard' play exists.. but the game allows you to do anything. Anything you want. You could stay on 8 workers and build 4 command centers before your first barracks if you wanted. You could not build a single extra worker and go straight to carriers off 1 base. You COULD..... take two workers and build your barracks really close to the enemy's base.
The theory that anything I lose to that wasn't from a building directly in the path that I sent my first 1-2 overlords is cheese.... is ridiculous.
|
Because I know you'll misrepresent what I just said, here is the quote in question, bolded to make things easier to understand.
On September 15 2014 12:50 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2014 12:45 RampancyTW wrote:
I don't know if I'd consider 2-rax cheese. It typically leads to a pretty even situation for both parties assuming equal levels of play and with the way each race's follow-up works it almost always transitions into a "normal"-looking game. I'd consider it more of a committed pressure build.
It hits super early, yeah, but it isn't cheesy in how it plays outside of a few map-specific bunker positions. everyone has a different definition of cheese but to me cheese is a build you do thats banking entirely on having aggressive potential before your opponent scouts your base with a normal timing. and 2rax definitely falls under that category. if a competent zerg player knows with 100% certainty that 2rax is coming then it should be a lost game for terran, just like a 6pool or a proxy 2gate literally anything can have a followup provided you do enough damage allin = you are cutting long term economy to commit to your attack. you can still transition off an allin if it semi-works and you do damage but don't kill your opponent cheese = banking on being unscoutable by anything other than a super safe early map scout with a worker
To which you responded with:
On September 15 2014 13:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2014 12:50 brickrd wrote:On September 15 2014 12:45 RampancyTW wrote:
I don't know if I'd consider 2-rax cheese. It typically leads to a pretty even situation for both parties assuming equal levels of play and with the way each race's follow-up works it almost always transitions into a "normal"-looking game. I'd consider it more of a committed pressure build.
It hits super early, yeah, but it isn't cheesy in how it plays outside of a few map-specific bunker positions. everyone has a different definition of cheese but to me cheese is a build you do thats banking entirely on having aggressive potential before your opponent scouts your base with a normal timing. and 2rax definitely falls under that category. if a competent zerg player knows with 100% certainty that 2rax is coming then it should be a lost game for terran, just like a 6pool or a proxy 2gate literally anything can have a followup provided you do enough damage allin = you are cutting long term economy to commit to your attack. you can still transition off an allin if it semi-works and you do damage but don't kill your opponent cheese = banking on being unscoutable by anything other than a super safe early map scout with a worker What is a normal timing to you? What timing attack is zerg doing in the "normal" time slots that hits terran? Your definition is vague and makes no sense.
And the overlord bit comes now:
On September 16 2014 09:22 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2014 13:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 15 2014 12:50 brickrd wrote:On September 15 2014 12:45 RampancyTW wrote:
I don't know if I'd consider 2-rax cheese. It typically leads to a pretty even situation for both parties assuming equal levels of play and with the way each race's follow-up works it almost always transitions into a "normal"-looking game. I'd consider it more of a committed pressure build.
It hits super early, yeah, but it isn't cheesy in how it plays outside of a few map-specific bunker positions. everyone has a different definition of cheese but to me cheese is a build you do thats banking entirely on having aggressive potential before your opponent scouts your base with a normal timing. and 2rax definitely falls under that category. if a competent zerg player knows with 100% certainty that 2rax is coming then it should be a lost game for terran, just like a 6pool or a proxy 2gate literally anything can have a followup provided you do enough damage allin = you are cutting long term economy to commit to your attack. you can still transition off an allin if it semi-works and you do damage but don't kill your opponent cheese = banking on being unscoutable by anything other than a super safe early map scout with a worker What is a normal timing to you? What timing attack is zerg doing in the "normal" time slots that hits terran? Your definition is vague and makes no sense. huh? normal timing is when the ovie reaches his base. its limited by game mechanics, overlord has a set speed. sounds like youre trying to paint me as some kind of build or race whiner when all im doing is defining a term, which is very annoying. i used very specific examples, 2gate, 6pool, 2rax all of these things are going to be in your face by the time you scout them, theres no option to make your overlord go faster. 9/10 worker scout to their base isnt going to help either because in zvz its terrible/unnecessary and in the other matchups you still have to confirm that its not expo first and what kind of proxy it is
You're follow up genius interpretation of that was:
On September 16 2014 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 09:22 brickrd wrote:On September 15 2014 13:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 15 2014 12:50 brickrd wrote:On September 15 2014 12:45 RampancyTW wrote:
I don't know if I'd consider 2-rax cheese. It typically leads to a pretty even situation for both parties assuming equal levels of play and with the way each race's follow-up works it almost always transitions into a "normal"-looking game. I'd consider it more of a committed pressure build.
It hits super early, yeah, but it isn't cheesy in how it plays outside of a few map-specific bunker positions. everyone has a different definition of cheese but to me cheese is a build you do thats banking entirely on having aggressive potential before your opponent scouts your base with a normal timing. and 2rax definitely falls under that category. if a competent zerg player knows with 100% certainty that 2rax is coming then it should be a lost game for terran, just like a 6pool or a proxy 2gate literally anything can have a followup provided you do enough damage allin = you are cutting long term economy to commit to your attack. you can still transition off an allin if it semi-works and you do damage but don't kill your opponent cheese = banking on being unscoutable by anything other than a super safe early map scout with a worker What is a normal timing to you? What timing attack is zerg doing in the "normal" time slots that hits terran? Your definition is vague and makes no sense. huh? normal timing is when the ovie reaches his base. its limited by game mechanics, overlord has a set speed. sounds like youre trying to paint me as some kind of build or race whiner when all im doing is defining a term, which is very annoying. i used very specific examples, 2gate, 6pool, 2rax all of these things are going to be in your face by the time you scout them, theres no option to make your overlord go faster. 9/10 worker scout to their base isnt going to help either because in zvz its terrible/unnecessary and in the other matchups you still have to confirm that its not expo first and what kind of proxy it is So you're saying it's cheesy if Zerg can't spot it with just an overlord scout? Got it.
|
On September 24 2014 22:59 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 22:55 bo1b wrote:On September 24 2014 22:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 24 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. Actually, that's exactly what viable means. vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ adjective adjective: viable capable of working successfully; feasible. If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable. Heck, had someone argue a few pages back that unless an overlord scout spots it before aggression happens it is cheese. People don't like having to actually look for what the opponent is doing. That's not what he said. He said that if it hits before an overlord can cross the map it is cheese, aka if it hits very early. Dunno why I'm responding to you either because you're so full of shit and constantly misrepresent things. In my book, not worker scouting is greedy. That overlord scouting crap is just a way for greedy players to write off their losses as cheese without having to deal with the fact that they were greedy. Sure, 'standard' play exists.. but the game allows you to do anything. Anything you want. You could stay on 8 workers and build 4 command centers before your first barracks if you wanted. You could not build a single extra worker and go straight to carriers off 1 base. You COULD..... take two workers and build your barracks really close to the enemy's base. The theory that anything I lose to that wasn't from a building directly in the path that I sent my first 1-2 overlords is cheese.... is ridiculous.
But that's not what he said. Tbh I don't understand why people comment on things when very basic reading comprehension is beyond them.
|
To be fair every single Zerg player knows Maru will 11/11 on Merry go round and they still lose going pool first.
|
That's because pool first is worse then hatch first vs 11/11
|
On September 24 2014 23:01 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 22:59 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 22:55 bo1b wrote:On September 24 2014 22:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 24 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. Actually, that's exactly what viable means. vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ adjective adjective: viable capable of working successfully; feasible. If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable. Heck, had someone argue a few pages back that unless an overlord scout spots it before aggression happens it is cheese. People don't like having to actually look for what the opponent is doing. That's not what he said. He said that if it hits before an overlord can cross the map it is cheese, aka if it hits very early. Dunno why I'm responding to you either because you're so full of shit and constantly misrepresent things. In my book, not worker scouting is greedy. That overlord scouting crap is just a way for greedy players to write off their losses as cheese without having to deal with the fact that they were greedy. Sure, 'standard' play exists.. but the game allows you to do anything. Anything you want. You could stay on 8 workers and build 4 command centers before your first barracks if you wanted. You could not build a single extra worker and go straight to carriers off 1 base. You COULD..... take two workers and build your barracks really close to the enemy's base. The theory that anything I lose to that wasn't from a building directly in the path that I sent my first 1-2 overlords is cheese.... is ridiculous. But that's not what he said. Tbh I don't understand why people comment on things when very basic reading comprehension is beyond them.
He said anything that hits before normal scout timing is cheese. Then he said normal timing is when overlord reaches the base. So by his definition anything that hits before overlord reaches the base is cheese.
My view is that on some of these maps it can take an overlord way too long to reach the other side of the map and that relying on overlords to scout is greedy for that reason. You should drone/scv/probe scout.
|
On September 24 2014 23:02 bo1b wrote:
That's because pool first is worse then hatch first vs 11/11
They lose to it hatch first too lol.
|
On September 24 2014 22:59 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 22:55 bo1b wrote:On September 24 2014 22:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 24 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. Actually, that's exactly what viable means. vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ adjective adjective: viable capable of working successfully; feasible. If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable. Heck, had someone argue a few pages back that unless an overlord scout spots it before aggression happens it is cheese. People don't like having to actually look for what the opponent is doing. That's not what he said. He said that if it hits before an overlord can cross the map it is cheese, aka if it hits very early. Dunno why I'm responding to you either because you're so full of shit and constantly misrepresent things. In my book, not worker scouting is greedy. That overlord scouting crap is just a way for greedy players to write off their losses as cheese without having to deal with the fact that they were greedy. Sure, 'standard' play exists.. but the game allows you to do anything. Anything you want. You could stay on 8 workers and build 4 command centers before your first barracks if you wanted. You could not build a single extra worker and go straight to carriers off 1 base. You COULD..... take two workers and build your barracks really close to the enemy's base. The theory that anything I lose to that wasn't from a building directly in the path that I sent my first 1-2 overlords is cheese.... is ridiculous.
The term cheese means that you do something unexpected that relies on your opponent not scouting it.
That has nothing to do with whether it is scoutable or not. Nothing with whether it is greedy not to scout for it, or not. Nothing of that kind.
Cheese is cheese and greed is greed. But playing against someone who is greedy doesn't turn cheese into no-cheese.
|
On September 24 2014 23:04 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 23:01 bo1b wrote:On September 24 2014 22:59 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 22:55 bo1b wrote:On September 24 2014 22:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 24 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:On September 24 2014 06:26 DinoMight wrote:
I wonder what everyone's take on the game would be if we had no access to statistics and were simply told by blizzard that "the game is balanced based on their analysis."
Would people play differently? Would we keep trying new strategies to improve the way the game is played? Would we stop accepting that one race "should" lose to a certain composition and figure out new ways of playing against it? I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better. Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. Actually, that's exactly what viable means. vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ adjective adjective: viable capable of working successfully; feasible. If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable. Heck, had someone argue a few pages back that unless an overlord scout spots it before aggression happens it is cheese. People don't like having to actually look for what the opponent is doing. That's not what he said. He said that if it hits before an overlord can cross the map it is cheese, aka if it hits very early. Dunno why I'm responding to you either because you're so full of shit and constantly misrepresent things. In my book, not worker scouting is greedy. That overlord scouting crap is just a way for greedy players to write off their losses as cheese without having to deal with the fact that they were greedy. Sure, 'standard' play exists.. but the game allows you to do anything. Anything you want. You could stay on 8 workers and build 4 command centers before your first barracks if you wanted. You could not build a single extra worker and go straight to carriers off 1 base. You COULD..... take two workers and build your barracks really close to the enemy's base. The theory that anything I lose to that wasn't from a building directly in the path that I sent my first 1-2 overlords is cheese.... is ridiculous. But that's not what he said. Tbh I don't understand why people comment on things when very basic reading comprehension is beyond them. He said anything that hits before normal scout timing is cheese. Then he said normal timing is when overlord reaches the base. So by his definition anything that hits before overlord reaches the base is cheese. My view is that on some of these maps it can take an overlord way too long to reach the other side of the map and that relying on overlords to scout is greedy for that reason. You should drone/scv/probe scout.
Can you write down a time in the game that something counts as cheese to you? Like even if its cross spots on whirlwind or something I can't really think of a situation we're zerglings or marines or zealots running up your ramp at that time wouldn't be counted as cheese.
On September 24 2014 23:05 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 23:02 bo1b wrote:
That's because pool first is worse then hatch first vs 11/11 They lose to it hatch first too lol.
Because they go > 15 hatch > drone > drone > gas > pool and then micro poorly. Nestea showed us before queen range so long ago that pool first is shit against pretty much everything terran does.
|
On September 24 2014 23:10 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 23:04 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 23:01 bo1b wrote:On September 24 2014 22:59 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 22:55 bo1b wrote:On September 24 2014 22:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 24 2014 22:44 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 13:23 jojos11 wrote:On September 24 2014 07:40 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 06:41 Big J wrote:
[quote]
I dont see how my strategy choice is connected with statistics about winrates. When refining my play I do it purely based on replay analysis and proplays. And yeah, since Im not at the very top of the ladder, it's pretty straightforward to identify ways to play better.
Also I'm hardly trying "new" strategies these days. There's not a lot you can do differently that hasn't been around - in terms of macro play and everything else is disgusting to begin with. Though you can alaways refine something old. Well, for example if people were told that "other Zergs" don't have an issue with these Widow Mines for instance and the game looked "balanced..." wouldn't you try harder to split your lings and improve your gameplay rather than resorting to cheese or just balance whining? Sure, we're all told that Templar openings are bad and they can't work "because Widow Mines" and then shown statistics of how T>P in the last few tourneys..... but I've seen MC and PartinG do it, and I do it all the time on ladder. just because MC and PartinG did it doesnt mean its viable.its like saying mech are viable in TvP because bbyong did it a few times. Actually, that's exactly what viable means. vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ adjective adjective: viable capable of working successfully; feasible. If MC and Parting can do it, it is viable. Heck, had someone argue a few pages back that unless an overlord scout spots it before aggression happens it is cheese. People don't like having to actually look for what the opponent is doing. That's not what he said. He said that if it hits before an overlord can cross the map it is cheese, aka if it hits very early. Dunno why I'm responding to you either because you're so full of shit and constantly misrepresent things. In my book, not worker scouting is greedy. That overlord scouting crap is just a way for greedy players to write off their losses as cheese without having to deal with the fact that they were greedy. Sure, 'standard' play exists.. but the game allows you to do anything. Anything you want. You could stay on 8 workers and build 4 command centers before your first barracks if you wanted. You could not build a single extra worker and go straight to carriers off 1 base. You COULD..... take two workers and build your barracks really close to the enemy's base. The theory that anything I lose to that wasn't from a building directly in the path that I sent my first 1-2 overlords is cheese.... is ridiculous. But that's not what he said. Tbh I don't understand why people comment on things when very basic reading comprehension is beyond them. He said anything that hits before normal scout timing is cheese. Then he said normal timing is when overlord reaches the base. So by his definition anything that hits before overlord reaches the base is cheese. My view is that on some of these maps it can take an overlord way too long to reach the other side of the map and that relying on overlords to scout is greedy for that reason. You should drone/scv/probe scout. Can you write down a time in the game that something counts as cheese to you? Like even if its cross spots on whirlwind or something I can't really think of a situation we're zerglings or marines or zealots running up your ramp at that time wouldn't be counted as cheese. Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 23:05 DinoMight wrote:On September 24 2014 23:02 bo1b wrote:
That's because pool first is worse then hatch first vs 11/11 They lose to it hatch first too lol. Because they go > 15 hatch > drone > drone > gas > pool and then micro poorly. Nestea showed us before queen range so long ago that pool first is shit against pretty much everything terran does.
If I remember correctly, back in WOL 14 hatch 14 pool was the best answer to 11/11. It gives you a lot of larvae, early enough zerglings and creep at your natural.
14 hatch 14 pool should also be pretty good against reapers. Earlier queens and zerglings mean less building and canceling structures. In the end it might even be not too bad economically. Some zergs that always loose to 11/11 should really look into that build again.
|
People would 14 hatch because the gas timings lined up nicely for 2 base spire iirc
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
