EPTIdrA vs Taeja $400 match to debut Korean Weekly S2 - Page 56
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
senty
62 Posts
| ||
|
senty
62 Posts
| ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On January 17 2012 20:39 senty wrote: Nvm I found it. www.twitch.tv/esvision/b/305708166 if anyone havent seen the games yet. Oh but we have, and we cried. | ||
|
NeWeNiyaLord
Norway2474 Posts
| ||
|
Sarang
Australia2363 Posts
On January 17 2012 21:13 NeWeNiyaLord wrote: What was the score? I didn't watch the games but judging from the previous page, Taeja won 4-0. | ||
|
senty
62 Posts
Seen them now.. Can tell why you cried  | ||
|
gh0un
601 Posts
On January 17 2012 18:20 Mandalor wrote: infestors take a lot of gas which means less mutas. And you want mutas against tanks / as a generic harass option. Also, banelings are very good on creep and fungal isn't exactly good against split marines either. No terran will ever engage deep into creep. If it wasnt so easy to clear out creep for terran (and protoss) i would agree that banelings on creep are fine against marines, but there is no baneling on creep scenario, unless terran is bad and wants to deliberately lose the game. As the one you quoted said, marines hard counter banelings offcreep (if microed) and its a long time i have seen anyone make them work against a terran that splits his marines and kites well. At this point, going baneling against stimmed marines is a gimicky strategy that requires the terran to mess up. Hoping on the enemy to NOT micro well is the very definition of gimicky strategy. It always ends in the same scenario, there are a mass of marines and a few tanks, banelings (+zergling meatshield) run in, dont kill a single marine, zerg is left with mutas vs marines, if he has more mutas than marines on the field, the game continues a while longer, if he doesnt have more mutas, zerg is forced to tap out. Ling bling muta is a gimicky strategy that heavily resolves around terran not building enough turrets in his base (leaving it harassable), not babysitting his tanks well with his marines, leaving them harrasable to mutas, not being careful of banelingmines, AND being retarded enough to engage ON creep against banelings. If zerg can exploit any of these options because the terran plays bad, he has a fighting chance. If terran plays well, it looks like taeja vs idra. Mutas cant harass at all, ling/bling cant deal with the groundarmy into gg. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6860 Posts
On January 17 2012 03:10 Harris1st wrote: Cheering for Idra but i think Taeja got this 4:2 or 4:0 depending on who is going to win the first game Ha called it Idra played just so predicable, every game the same and his mutas did nothing This was not anywhere near code S worthy, and if he is playing a terran in code A he is out again | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On January 17 2012 21:38 gh0un wrote: As the one you quoted said, marines hard counter banelings offcreep (if microed) and its a long time i have seen anyone make them work against a terran that splits his marines and kites well. At this point, going baneling against stimmed marines is a gimicky strategy that requires the terran to mess up. Do you seriously believe in what you're saying? Please learn what mean “hard counter” and “gimmicky” before using those words. Assuming the Terran player goes Marine/Tanks as core of his army, Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks is the most standard strategy in TvZ. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
He did ONE thing in the 3 games I watched (1-3) which was somewhat inventive, and that didn't really work, and he transitioned into standard Idra. He doesn't seem to have gained any imagination. Game 1 was typical Idra getting destroyed by cheese. Games 2 and 3 ended up being typical Idra getting beaten by a better player. Idra was good because he was amazing at macro. Taeja showed us that he, as terran, can equal Idra in terms of economy and macro, and destroy him in EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF HIS GAMEPLAY. No surprises Idra lost 4-0. | ||
|
magnaflow
Canada1521 Posts
On January 17 2012 22:25 TheDwf wrote: Do you seriously believe in what you're saying? Please learn what mean “hard counter” and “gimmicky” before using those words. Assuming the Terran player goes Marine/Tanks as core of his army, Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks is the most standard strategy in TvZ. It's also outdated IMO. Terran players know how to play against it, switch that shit up once in awhile. | ||
|
MetalSlug
Germany443 Posts
| ||
|
Namu
United States826 Posts
On January 17 2012 21:38 gh0un wrote: No terran will ever engage deep into creep. If it wasnt so easy to clear out creep for terran (and protoss) i would agree that banelings on creep are fine against marines, but there is no baneling on creep scenario, unless terran is bad and wants to deliberately lose the game. As the one you quoted said, marines hard counter banelings offcreep (if microed) and its a long time i have seen anyone make them work against a terran that splits his marines and kites well. At this point, going baneling against stimmed marines is a gimicky strategy that requires the terran to mess up. Hoping on the enemy to NOT micro well is the very definition of gimicky strategy. It always ends in the same scenario, there are a mass of marines and a few tanks, banelings (+zergling meatshield) run in, dont kill a single marine, zerg is left with mutas vs marines, if he has more mutas than marines on the field, the game continues a while longer, if he doesnt have more mutas, zerg is forced to tap out. Ling bling muta is a gimicky strategy that heavily resolves around terran not building enough turrets in his base (leaving it harassable), not babysitting his tanks well with his marines, leaving them harrasable to mutas, not being careful of banelingmines, AND being retarded enough to engage ON creep against banelings. If zerg can exploit any of these options because the terran plays bad, he has a fighting chance. If terran plays well, it looks like taeja vs idra. Mutas cant harass at all, ling/bling cant deal with the groundarmy into gg. the whole point of ling bling muta is to buy time with mobility so you get infestors up then you transition into hive tech of course, if zerg stays on ling bling muta without infestors, and later on without hive tech, he will die to a well upgraded terran army. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
But this serie doesnt mean anything, Idra may very well hide his strategy to let his terrans opponents of GSL practices against this style. Who knows :D | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 17 2012 22:35 MetalSlug wrote: So Marines "hard counter" banelings now, really ? Yup, there is no way zerg can beat a terran 'who is good' coz Idra lost to Taeja.. and we know Idra cannot lose games without the game being unbalanced and unfair to 'macro' players. | ||
|
gh0un
601 Posts
On January 17 2012 22:35 MetalSlug wrote: So Marines "hard counter" banelings now, really ? If you thought that banelings countered marines you were wrong from the beginning. Its just that nowadays they not only are countered by marines, they are hard countered by marines. Unless its a baneling landmine, there is no way that a baneling army ever does significant damage to a marine ball, even without tank support. Infestors turn the tide, but then you dont need the banelings anyways since a successful fungal means you kill them anyways with a followup fungal. If you can show me one game where a terran uses good micro to spread marines and kite banes, and still loses an comparable amount of marines to those banelings.... but you cant find such a game anyways. By default marines counter banelings since they are faster offcreep and you actually need 2 banelings per marine to kill one. This basically means that well spreaded marines will actually beat banelings cost efficiently, and we are seeing that time and time again against the top zergs in the world. If banelings really were a good counter against marines, then one would assume that 30+ banelings would scare a terran off of producing marines, but instead we see some terrans even go pure marine even against pure banelings, since they dont give a shit about banelings. On January 17 2012 23:05 s4life wrote: Yup, there is no way zerg can beat a terran 'who is good' coz Idra lost to Taeja.. and we know Idra cannot lose games without the game being unbalanced and unfair to 'macro' players. No one said that, you are just a whiner thats all. There is no way ling/bling/muta openings will work against terran in the long run. Im quite confident that other playstyles have much better odds. Idra is a noob that still goes for the same style the fourth time in a row even though its obvious its an inferior style. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On January 17 2012 23:06 gh0un wrote: If you thought that banelings countered marines you were wrong from the beginning. Its just that nowadays they not only are countered by marines, they are hard countered by marines. Unless its a baneling landmine, there is no way that a baneling army ever does significant damage to a marine ball, even without tank support. Yeah, right. Are you aware that Marine splitting weakens them against Zerglings and Mutalisks? Zerglings and Mutalisks are much stronger against small squads of Marines than against a decent-sized packed army. How many times do you see the Mutalisk flock picking off what remains of the Terran army, i. e. small, scattered groups of Marines? This is thanks to Banelings. Not all Banelings will connect against a good Terran, of course, but some of them definitely will, and since no one has Automaton 2000 bot micro, your Banelings won't hit single Marines but small packs of them. No human will ever have enough micro in a massive fight to trade 1 Marine against 2 Banelings like a bot could, so stop this “2 Banelings against 1 Marine” non-sense. On January 17 2012 23:06 gh0un wrote: Infestors turn the tide, but then you dont need the banelings anyways since a successful fungal means you kill them anyways with a followup fungal. Do you realize how little sense this statement makes in the eyes of your main argument? Banelings and Infestors are both dealt with thanks to Marine splitting, so why would Infestors be any better? Infestors with no or limited energy are not that useful, are they? On January 17 2012 23:06 gh0un wrote: If banelings really were a good counter against marines, then one would assume that 30+ banelings would scare a terran off of producing marines, but instead we see some terrans even go pure marine even against pure banelings, since they dont give a shit about banelings. Maybe because there are other variables, like economy or larva management? Go play rock/paper/scissors if you want to play a “counter only” game. On January 17 2012 23:06 gh0un wrote: Idra is a noob that still goes for the same style the fourth time in a row even though its obvious its an inferior style. Guess players like NesTea or Leenock are also “noobs” to play this “inferior style”? Funny, they often seem quite successful with it. But then again, I guess they're playing against random Gold League opponents... | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44139 Posts
On January 17 2012 22:35 MetalSlug wrote: So Marines "hard counter" banelings now, really ? If that's a serious question: 1. I guess the proper term for it is "soft counter", as banelings can do potential damage if the marines are mismicroed (it's not like marines can fly- yet- which would mean that banelings could never do damage against marines) 2. We've known about this since MKP came into the spotlight. You'd need to be really clever with banelings (like landmines) for them to be cost-effective against marines. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
| ||
| ||
