EPTPainUser & HD Casting Feedback Thread! - Page 41
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Hitapotamonkus
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Rube_Juice
Canada348 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Babru
196 Posts
On April 10 2012 14:16 thanhbao86 wrote: How does he have more drones ? He opened 11 overpool to put pressure on Toss if he FFE, but the Toss gate/cyber first so he was making probes nonstop (which is the norm on that map). Up until building that gold base, he still had less workers. Even when that gold base finishes, he would still have less drones. Then 4 gates would come 1 min later. How would he have more drones if he has to make lings to defend and still has not mined from that base for more than 1 min. No, i did not watch the match. Thats why i asked if i had interpreted what the first guy i questioned had written correctly. Well obviously a zerg doesnt want to blindly make more than 4 lings (always make 4 lings to deny probe/pylon blocking exe that is) if he has no intel giving him reason to make more. Its from this starting point i am reasoning. But then again if a zerg has that in mind he should just aswell make a 13/14 pool and not a 10/11 pool. Regardless, even if he made 6 lings, or even 8, i would say making a fast exe at the gold vs a non FFE is still feasible, but it definitly makes it worse compared to if he had only made 4 lings. However, this goes back to my second point in my initial response, which is: To choose an opening which forces you to cansel your first hatch if your opponent is making a common strategy (non FFE opening) is a very questionable opening that allows for the caster to indeed ask theirselves wtf nestea is doing. | ||
|
MannerMan
371 Posts
| ||
|
CrazyF1r3f0x
United States2120 Posts
| ||
|
Babru
196 Posts
On April 10 2012 14:28 Rube_Juice wrote: Babru are you trolling here or just a bad? 11 Overpool into Hatch at gold on Antiga and you think Z can hold it against a 1 base aggressive Protoss who knows what the fuck he's doing? Never mind hold it, you seem to think Z should be able to crush P with this strat? Dude you have to be joking, PLEASE stop defending your position because you are embarassing yourself here. A Zerg taking a fast gold without having wasted a lot of larva on lings is indeed an advantagous opening vs any opening by toss and you stating otherwise is embarrassing for you to say the least (very much so If you are a toss or a zerg player). Because that is the scenario i have been arguing for. In my initial response to the guy i questioned i asked if i had interpreted his poorly written post correctly and that explains why i argued for the scenario that i argued for (as in arguing for the gold opening vs P in general and that it in general is feasible vs whatever opening the toss does). However, I would still say that making more than 4 initial lings vs a non FFE into planting a fast gold is still somewhat feasible, so even at that point he shouldnt necessarely choose to cansel it. You obviously dont understand the power of that perfectly timed 6-7 drone transfer to the gold into massing units (if the situation so demands it). This is a major reason as to why gold bases are getting removed, because of zergs taking them as their first exe vs p. | ||
|
TRaFFiC
Canada1448 Posts
| ||
|
Dirt McGirt
New Zealand129 Posts
I enjoy listening to HD solo cast and he's done well with other casters. I didn't overly enjoy their IPL4 work - but then again that's casting live, like in front of actual people. Amazing how that can be a game changer for some people. Certainly seemed like HD was nervous. HD - keep at it and the improvement will come. Painuser - I'd like to see you get a bit more positive in your banter but your knowledge and understanding is top notch. | ||
|
thanhbao86
Canada199 Posts
On April 10 2012 14:32 Babru wrote: No, i did not watch the match. Thats why i asked if i had interpreted what the first guy i questioned had written correctly. Well obviously a zerg doesnt want to blindly make more then 4 lings (always make 4 lings to deny probe/pylon blocking exe that is) if he has no intel giving him reason to make more. Its from this starting point i am reasoning. But then again if a zerg has that in mind he should just aswell make a 13/14 pool and not a 10/11 pool. Regardless, even if he made 6 lings, or even 8, i would say making a fast exe at the gold vs a non FFE is still feasible, but it definitly makes it worse compared to if he had only made 4 lings. However, this goes back to my second point in my initial response, which is: To choose an opening which forces you to cansel your first hatch if your opponent is making a common strategy (non FFE opening) is a very questionable opening that allows for the caster to indeed ask theirselves wtf nestea is doing. Yes his strat was not good from the beginning but it was because of Squirtle opening (no opening is perfect, ofc it would be weak against some). However on Zerg point of view it was very reasonable on that map. You have to know that 90% of toss FFE on Antiga given the long distance rush, so thats why he overpooled (In fact most maps now are big so most Tosses FFE). Then he expanded to the gold to make up for the early pool disadvantage (ofc this is after making 6 lings to put on pressure). Up until this point, every of Nestea moves makes perfect sense. Then his 6 lings saw 1 base toss and therefore he canceled the Hatch at gold and go back to his nat which is much easier to defend 1 base aggressive toss with 3 spines. However, Nestea opening put him behind but no opening is perfect. You cant say Nestea should prepare for 1 base Toss 9early pool and also FFE opening (hatch first). Babru, if I and many people in here understand Nestea chain of thoughts, the casters should have. The fact that they keep asking and didnt understand shows their lack of game knowledge. Nothing is questionable here, people early pool to catch tosses that FFE off guard all the time, both in ladder and pro games. Your support for the caster is great and I completely understand but your statement was wrong in the first place and you keep trying to defend the casters and yourself. In this case, i am really sure if HD+painuser paid enough attention they would have realized Nestea reasons. However, this is still early in the game they just did not pay close attention; well they called the overpool wrong (they thought its 9 pool). To be frank, HDPainuser call early pool wrong all time. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On April 10 2012 14:40 Babru wrote: A Zerg taking a fast gold without having wasted a lot of larva on lings is indeed an advantagous opening vs any opening by toss and you stating otherwise is embarrassing for you to say the least (very much so If you are a toss or a zerg player). Because that is the scenario i have been arguing for. In my initial response to the guy i questioned i asked if i had interpreted his poorly written post correctly and that explains why i argued for the scenario that i argued for (as in arguing for the gold opening vs P in general and that it in general is feasible vs whatever opening the toss does). However, I would still say that making more then 4 initial lings vs a non FFE into planting a fast gold is still somewhat feasible, so even at that point he shouldnt necessarely choose to cansel it. You obviously dont understand the power of that perfectly timed 6-7 drone transfer to the gold into massing units (if the situation so demands it). This is a major reason as to why gold bases are getting removed, because of zergs taking them as their first exe vs p. I don't think you're in a position to be calling anyone's post poorly written. Your own posts are borderline incomprehensible. If you had trouble understanding him it's due to your own lack of English skill, as his post was perfectly coherent. Protips: Expansion cannot possibly be abbreviated as "exe", the word is cancel not cansel, "i" should be capitalized, it's "more than" not "more then", and that is aside from the generally hard to parse grammar you write with. As for the argument you are having, several people have explained very clearly why fast expanding to the gold on Antiga against a protoss who went gateway first is an atrocious idea. Their posts were well reasoned, well explained, and very convincing. Your posts have not been convincing at all. And Nestea, who is a very good Zerg, apparently agrees with the people you are arguing against. I look forward to you winning your first major tournament since you have such a better grasp on the game than (not "then") IMNestea. | ||
|
Warzilla
Czech Republic311 Posts
| ||
|
Babru
196 Posts
On April 10 2012 16:29 Zaqwe wrote: I don't think you're in a position to be calling anyone's post poorly written. Your own posts are borderline incomprehensible. If you had trouble understanding him it's due to your own lack of English skill, as his post was perfectly coherent. Protips: Expansion cannot possibly be abbreviated as "exe", the word is cancel not cansel, "i" should be capitalized, it's "more than" not "more then", and that is aside from the generally hard to parse grammar you write with. As for the argument you are having, several people have explained very clearly why fast expanding to the gold on Antiga against a protoss who went gateway first is an atrocious idea. Their posts were well reasoned, well explained, and very convincing. Your posts have not been convincing at all. And Nestea, who is a very good Zerg, apparently agrees with the people you are arguing against. I look forward to you winning your first major tournament since you have such a better grasp on the game than (not "then") IMNestea. "As for the argument you are having, several people have explained very clearly why fast expanding to the gold on Antiga against a protoss who went gateway first is an atrocious idea". This is just plain wrong. The only case in which it would be a less of a good idea is if you have opend up a way too early pool + investing in more lings than you should have, kind of like Nesta did (i just learned that he made 6 lings which in this case turned out to be atleast 2 unnecessary lings, not changing the scenario by too much though) but this obviously has the same affect on expanding to your natural, but since expanding to the gold is a more delicat thing one could argue that its even more important to get it just right economy wise when taking that exp. Like I have already expplained now, the scenario I have been arguing for is the standard 14 pool/14 gas 1 queen, ling speed, 4 lings into (19 or 20 supply) hatch @ gold. The fact that you are saying this wouldnt be feasible vs a gateway 1 base/gateway + exe opening is just astonishing to me. Think about it for a second. What is the main difference between putting down your first hatch at the gold compared to at the natural? A shorter distance to the toss main aswell as that highground. The highground doesnt play a significant role at all in the early game zvp though and at a later stage the gold has already taken out its advantage. Why? Because zerg will have melee units and the spines/queens will be able to attack the highground with the 2-3 overlords providing vision (the very first 2 overlords go scouting just like they normally do, so overlord 3, 4 and 5 etc can be used for providing highground vision). So the difference is that its a shorter distance. But you must understand that the cross position antiga gold expansion distance to the protoss main is not even as short of a distance as the previously played Shatterd Temple close spawn distance just to name one scenario. Tell me, did you consider the standard 19/20 supply hatch expansion on Shatterd Temple in that position to not be feasible? Did you argue that "no, a zerg can not plant standard timing hatch exp vs protoss on Shatterd close position, thats insane"? Shatterd Temple close position was indeed broken but not in the way that a zerg couldnt open a fast or a standard timing exp hatch, but in the way that zerg didnt have a good choice for third exp aswell as the short distance playing a part later in the game. And actually, if the zerg would get a gold natural every game at shatterd (and toss getting a non gold natural) then obviously the closeposs scneario would most definiteley be the other way around, as in a scenario favouring zerg. Do you know anything about ZvP? Do you consider yourself a good player? Please ask any good Z or P player you come across wether the 14 pool 14 gas into 19/20 hatch at gold is a safe opening vs any common protoss opening (if the protoss would do something like proxy 2 gate "all in" then obviously the zerg would be wise enough to not plant the hatch at the gold) and you will get the same answer. And this is a major reason as for why gold bases as of today are getting rocks added to them or simply getting removed. | ||
|
HonorZ
France858 Posts
On April 10 2012 18:55 Babru wrote: "As for the argument you are having, several people have explained very clearly why fast expanding to the gold on Antiga against a protoss who went gateway first is an atrocious idea". This is just plain wrong. The only case in which it would be a less of a good idea is if you have opend up a way too early pool + investing in more lings than you should have, kind of like Nesta did (i just learned that he made 6 lings which in this case turned out to be atleast 2 unnecessary lings, not changing the scenario by too much though) but this obviously has the same affect on expanding to your natural, but since expanding to the gold is a more delicat thing one could argue that its even more important to get it just right economy wise when taking that exp. Like I have already expplained now, the scenario I have been arguing for is the standard 14 pool/14 gas 1 queen, ling speed, 4 lings into (19 or 20 supply) hatch @ gold. The fact that you are saying this wouldnt be feasible vs a gateway 1 base/gateway + exe opening is just astonishing to me. Think about it for a second. What is the main difference between putting down your first hatch at the gold compared to at the natural? A shorter distance to the toss main aswell as that highground. The highground doesnt play a significant role at all in the early game zvp though and at a later stage the gold has already taken out its advantage. Why? Because zerg will have melee units and the spines/queens will be able to attack the highground with the 2-3 overlords providing vision (the very first 2 overlords go scouting just like they normally do, so overlord 3, 4 and 5 etc can be used for providing highground vision). So the difference is that its a shorter distance. But you must understand that the cross position antiga gold expansion distance to the protoss main is not even as short of a distance as the previously played Shatterd Temple close spawn distance just to name one scenario. Tell me, did you consider the standard 19/20 supply hatch expansion on Shatterd Temple in that position to not be feasible? Did you argue that "no, a zerg can not plant standard timing hatch exp vs protoss on Shatterd close position, thats insane"? Shatterd Temple close position was indeed broken but not in the way that a zerg couldnt open a fast or a standard timing exp hatch, but in the way that zerg didnt have a good choice for third exp aswell as the short distance playing a part later in the game. And actually, if the zerg would get a gold natural every game at shatterd (and toss getting a non gold natural) then obviously the closeposs scneario would most definiteley be the other way around, as in a scenario favouring zerg. Do you know anything about ZvP? Do you consider yourself a good player? Please ask any good Z or P player you come across wether the 14 pool 14 gas into 19/20 hatch at gold is a safe opening vs any common protoss opening (if the protoss would do something like proxy 2 gate "all in" then obviously the zerg would be wise enough to not plant the hatch at the gold) and you will get the same answer. And this is a major reason as for why gold bases as of today are getting rocks added to them or simply getting removed. Barbu, I think you are asking yourself the wrong question here. The debate is not to know if Nestea BO was good or not but if the cancel of his hatch was mis interprated by the caster. The casters were wrong to think that Nestea would be able to defend his gold hatch vs a 1 gate expand, with the build that he was doing. Everybody seems to agree on that. Now gentleman, I suggest that we could move on to the initial purpose on the thread and let other people have a feedback on the actual casting instead of still discussing that weird argument about Nestea's BO. | ||
|
Rapture_FBGM
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On April 10 2012 21:21 Rapture_FBGM wrote: Honestly, I didn't think HD or PainUser did bad. I don't think they were the best team (enjoyed Apollo and CatsPajamas the most), but as a casting duo I think they did fine. There wasn't really anything major that made the games worse for me as a spectator. I think people are blowing things a bit out of proportion here. Indeed, i think this HD+Painuser sucks bandwagon is getting a little out of hand, wherever, i think they both did fine, maybe they were not as entertaining as apollo and cats, but they didn't suck as people are trying to exagerate | ||
|
Shibbxyz
United Kingdom94 Posts
The best from HD was watching the Scarlett vs Oz game where HD solo casted the first game, and my god that was such a nice game to watch and listen to I really enjoyed it not just for the gameplay but HD's commentary over it, nothing was complicated it was explained in the right amount of detail and kept a good eye on everything that was going on So thank you for that HD. | ||
|
Babru
196 Posts
On April 10 2012 21:10 HonorZ wrote: Barbu, I think you are asking yourself the wrong question here. The debate is not to know if Nestea BO was good or not but if the cancel of his hatch was mis interprated by the caster. The casters were wrong to think that Nestea would be able to defend his gold hatch vs a 1 gate expand, with the build that he was doing. Everybody seems to agree on that. Now gentleman, I suggest that we could move on to the initial purpose on the thread and let other people have a feedback on the actual casting instead of still discussing that weird argument about Nestea's BO. Now ive been clear with the fact that ive not seen this particular game. "The casters were wrong to think that Nestea would be able to defend his gold hatch vs a 1 gate expand". This is however what im hearing people saying and what i obviously dont agree with in a general discussion of the scenario. Because that is what ive been talking about, the general scenario of zerg gold first vs p. Now seing as this is a thread about casting and not a thread about strategy analysing i will consider stop posting about it after this one )) Like ive explained above taking your first exp at the gold with a standard exp timing is in general no problem whatsoever vs a 1 gate expand build and quite frankly vs any common p opening (a proxy 2 gate zealot would be the one big exception but in such a scenario the zerg will simply just not plant his hatch at the gold and if he has done so then yes he will have to cansel it). However, Nestea making an overpool into 6 lings into a gold exp is not at all as good of a scenario as the standard gold opening but i would still reason that its feasible. To make an overpool and 6 lings vs a toss not making FFE is never a good thing regardless of whatever exp you take as your first. Are people really this fixated on the shorter distance? Again see my point above how zergs were fully capable of pulling of standard exp timings in a close position ZvP @ Shattered Temple (Shatterd close poss though being broken in general when it comes to other aspects, but not when it comes to being able to getting up the first hatch expansion and being stable in that very moment, that is fully feasible and so is the same at Antiga when it comes to taking your gold as your first exp). | ||
|
h41fgod
Sweden377 Posts
On April 10 2012 21:31 Shibbxyz wrote: I think HD is a great caster, I don't believe the combination between him and PainUser was good it didn't work and it was noticeable from the start of IPL4 The best from HD was watching the Scarlett vs Oz game where HD solo casted the first game, and my god that was such a nice game to watch and listen to I really enjoyed it not just for the gameplay but HD's commentary over it, nothing was complicated it was explained in the right amount of detail and kept a good eye on everything that was going on So thank you for that HD. I think HD is the worst caster there. But I have to agree. The combination HD/Painuser is not a good pairing, no matter what I think of them as individual casters. | ||
|
MtlGuitarist97
United States1539 Posts
I feel like HD and Painuser didn't really have a defined role together, neither was the shoutcaster or the "analysis guy," they both tried to do half and half and it didn't really work. I like HD better as a solo caster, but I feel like he just needs to focus on one or the other, not try to do both. It's hard to be the analysis guy, so if you're not good at it just don't try to force it. Play to your strengths when casting and be a bit more natural. Don't try to force yourself over the other person and if you want to work really well with Painuser, ask for his opinion on analysis and ask what he thinks the best course of action for player X may be in this position. Overall, not terrible but you guys can still improve. Try to learn the other races a bit more, maybe just spend the $60 and play random on another account and just figure out the other races to help improve your casting. Hope this helps at all. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
I don't care much about casters in general but it seems to really show with the guys who appear to be passionate about the game, like apollo, bitterdam, etc. Regardless of my feelings on SC2 I can tell they like it. I never got that vibe from HD and Painuser | ||
| ||
