|
Why are you guys arguing about openers when the standard these days is extremely safe and good against everything...
If you're having BO losses it's because you chose to take a risk. Don't complain about the matchup being coinflippy when it's your fault.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 04 2012 12:26 scph wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:53 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 11:45 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:41 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 10:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 07:27 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:On July 04 2012 07:26 CosmicSpiral wrote:
[quote]
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics. what about a spike in lag during a baneling war? What about a spike in lag during a 8 gate? On July 04 2012 07:38 Hardigan wrote:On July 04 2012 07:26 CosmicSpiral wrote:
[quote]
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics. what about a 6pool vs 15 hatch? 6pool vs 14 pool? Luck and randomness definitely play a big role in the early game, it can win you games or give you massive advantages, if it works. BO orders =/= randomness In a way, they do. Can't really scout a 6-pool before your 15-hatch. Can't really scout a 14-pool before you 6-pool. Wrong opening = GG. That's less true now, though, as everyone's sorta going 15/15/15. That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent. It's nobody else's fault but your own. Believe it or not, there's someone else in the game. It's not just you against the AI. On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
MINDGAME YOUR OPPONENT.
Stop and think for a minute. You aren't the only player who chooses an opening. Your opponent does too, whether you try to mindgame them or not. Their opening is independent of yours. Sometimes they will 6-pool. Sometimes they'll 10-pool. Sometimes they'll 14-pool. Sometimes they'll 15-Hatch. There are games in which you will have completely random strictly BO losses because YOUR OPPONENT did a thing. You aren't always the proactive player. False. All opening builds are performed based on available information about the map, your opponent's mindset, and the score of the series. When your opponent opens 6 pool he makes a true/false assumption about what your opening build will be. None of this classifies as "random", "luck", or any nonsense like that. You might be right, but sometimes "randomness" and "luck" does play a factor in the outcome of a match. Notorious proxies and opponents just happening to scout it is quite random and lucky. Scouting that hidden spire at the edge of the map under a pooping overlord is quite random and lucky to me. You don't always "know" everything your opponent is doing. You don't always know a 6 pool is coming your way. Sometimes information doesn't get to you in time.
Everything you mentioned is true, and none of it is random. Something truly random would be if a baneling detonation did not confirm 1 out of every 27 times (due to errors in coding). But people deliberately use "random" and "luck" because they want to abdicate responsibility. If a loss is "random" then it can never hurt your ego because you never had a choice in the matter. So in the end it is just a defensive mechanism.
|
On July 04 2012 12:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:26 scph wrote:On July 04 2012 12:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:53 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 11:45 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:41 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 10:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 07:27 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
[quote]
what about a spike in lag during a baneling war? What about a spike in lag during a 8 gate? On July 04 2012 07:38 Hardigan wrote:
[quote]
what about a 6pool vs 15 hatch? 6pool vs 14 pool?
Luck and randomness definitely play a big role in the early game, it can win you games or give you massive advantages, if it works. BO orders =/= randomness In a way, they do. Can't really scout a 6-pool before your 15-hatch. Can't really scout a 14-pool before you 6-pool. Wrong opening = GG. That's less true now, though, as everyone's sorta going 15/15/15. That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent. It's nobody else's fault but your own. Believe it or not, there's someone else in the game. It's not just you against the AI. On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
MINDGAME YOUR OPPONENT.
Stop and think for a minute. You aren't the only player who chooses an opening. Your opponent does too, whether you try to mindgame them or not. Their opening is independent of yours. Sometimes they will 6-pool. Sometimes they'll 10-pool. Sometimes they'll 14-pool. Sometimes they'll 15-Hatch. There are games in which you will have completely random strictly BO losses because YOUR OPPONENT did a thing. You aren't always the proactive player. False. All opening builds are performed based on available information about the map, your opponent's mindset, and the score of the series. When your opponent opens 6 pool he makes a true/false assumption about what your opening build will be. None of this classifies as "random", "luck", or any nonsense like that. You might be right, but sometimes "randomness" and "luck" does play a factor in the outcome of a match. Notorious proxies and opponents just happening to scout it is quite random and lucky. Scouting that hidden spire at the edge of the map under a pooping overlord is quite random and lucky to me. You don't always "know" everything your opponent is doing. You don't always know a 6 pool is coming your way. Sometimes information doesn't get to you in time. Everything you mentioned is true, and none of it is random. Something truly random would be if a baneling detonation did not confirm 1 out of every 27 times (due to errors in coding). But people deliberately use "random" and "luck" because they want to abdicate responsibility. If a loss is "random" then it can never hurt your ego because you never had a choice in the matter. So in the end it is just a defensive mechanism.
You're being deliberately obtuse because you're upset about an issue of semantics. Nothing you're saying actually contradicts anything, you're just upset about the standard usage of the language within SC2.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 04 2012 12:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 12:26 scph wrote:On July 04 2012 12:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:53 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 11:45 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:41 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 10:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:
[quote]
What about a spike in lag during a 8 gate?
[quote]
BO orders =/= randomness In a way, they do. Can't really scout a 6-pool before your 15-hatch. Can't really scout a 14-pool before you 6-pool. Wrong opening = GG. That's less true now, though, as everyone's sorta going 15/15/15. That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent. It's nobody else's fault but your own. Believe it or not, there's someone else in the game. It's not just you against the AI. On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
MINDGAME YOUR OPPONENT.
Stop and think for a minute. You aren't the only player who chooses an opening. Your opponent does too, whether you try to mindgame them or not. Their opening is independent of yours. Sometimes they will 6-pool. Sometimes they'll 10-pool. Sometimes they'll 14-pool. Sometimes they'll 15-Hatch. There are games in which you will have completely random strictly BO losses because YOUR OPPONENT did a thing. You aren't always the proactive player. False. All opening builds are performed based on available information about the map, your opponent's mindset, and the score of the series. When your opponent opens 6 pool he makes a true/false assumption about what your opening build will be. None of this classifies as "random", "luck", or any nonsense like that. You might be right, but sometimes "randomness" and "luck" does play a factor in the outcome of a match. Notorious proxies and opponents just happening to scout it is quite random and lucky. Scouting that hidden spire at the edge of the map under a pooping overlord is quite random and lucky to me. You don't always "know" everything your opponent is doing. You don't always know a 6 pool is coming your way. Sometimes information doesn't get to you in time. Everything you mentioned is true, and none of it is random. Something truly random would be if a baneling detonation did not confirm 1 out of every 27 times (due to errors in coding). But people deliberately use "random" and "luck" because they want to abdicate responsibility. If a loss is "random" then it can never hurt your ego because you never had a choice in the matter. So in the end it is just a defensive mechanism. You're being deliberately obtuse because you're upset about an issue of semantics. Nothing you're saying actually contradicts anything, you're just upset about the standard usage of the language within SC2.
Pragmatics, not semantics. Me proving that there is no randomness in ZvZ contradicts the saltiness of people who want to blame the game for their losses.
|
On July 04 2012 12:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 12:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 12:26 scph wrote:On July 04 2012 12:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:53 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 11:45 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:41 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 10:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
[quote]
In a way, they do. Can't really scout a 6-pool before your 15-hatch. Can't really scout a 14-pool before you 6-pool. Wrong opening = GG. That's less true now, though, as everyone's sorta going 15/15/15.
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent. It's nobody else's fault but your own. Believe it or not, there's someone else in the game. It's not just you against the AI. On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
MINDGAME YOUR OPPONENT.
Stop and think for a minute. You aren't the only player who chooses an opening. Your opponent does too, whether you try to mindgame them or not. Their opening is independent of yours. Sometimes they will 6-pool. Sometimes they'll 10-pool. Sometimes they'll 14-pool. Sometimes they'll 15-Hatch. There are games in which you will have completely random strictly BO losses because YOUR OPPONENT did a thing. You aren't always the proactive player. False. All opening builds are performed based on available information about the map, your opponent's mindset, and the score of the series. When your opponent opens 6 pool he makes a true/false assumption about what your opening build will be. None of this classifies as "random", "luck", or any nonsense like that. You might be right, but sometimes "randomness" and "luck" does play a factor in the outcome of a match. Notorious proxies and opponents just happening to scout it is quite random and lucky. Scouting that hidden spire at the edge of the map under a pooping overlord is quite random and lucky to me. You don't always "know" everything your opponent is doing. You don't always know a 6 pool is coming your way. Sometimes information doesn't get to you in time. Everything you mentioned is true, and none of it is random. Something truly random would be if a baneling detonation did not confirm 1 out of every 27 times (due to errors in coding). But people deliberately use "random" and "luck" because they want to abdicate responsibility. If a loss is "random" then it can never hurt your ego because you never had a choice in the matter. So in the end it is just a defensive mechanism. You're being deliberately obtuse because you're upset about an issue of semantics. Nothing you're saying actually contradicts anything, you're just upset about the standard usage of the language within SC2. Pragmatics, not semantics.
Not even a little bit, since your wording preferences just make communication difficult. Which is why I'm done responding to you. We don't actually disagree on the topic of the thread, as far as I can tell; you just would prefer different words. And that's fine, and I'm gonna let you tilt at that windmill in peace.
Edit: Wait, apparently you do still disagree, which is fine. You're not open to persuasion, so I'm not going to try.
|
On July 04 2012 12:45 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 12:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 12:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 12:26 scph wrote:On July 04 2012 12:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:53 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 11:45 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:41 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
[quote]
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent. It's nobody else's fault but your own.
Believe it or not, there's someone else in the game. It's not just you against the AI. On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
MINDGAME YOUR OPPONENT.
Stop and think for a minute. You aren't the only player who chooses an opening. Your opponent does too, whether you try to mindgame them or not. Their opening is independent of yours. Sometimes they will 6-pool. Sometimes they'll 10-pool. Sometimes they'll 14-pool. Sometimes they'll 15-Hatch. There are games in which you will have completely random strictly BO losses because YOUR OPPONENT did a thing. You aren't always the proactive player. False. All opening builds are performed based on available information about the map, your opponent's mindset, and the score of the series. When your opponent opens 6 pool he makes a true/false assumption about what your opening build will be. None of this classifies as "random", "luck", or any nonsense like that. You might be right, but sometimes "randomness" and "luck" does play a factor in the outcome of a match. Notorious proxies and opponents just happening to scout it is quite random and lucky. Scouting that hidden spire at the edge of the map under a pooping overlord is quite random and lucky to me. You don't always "know" everything your opponent is doing. You don't always know a 6 pool is coming your way. Sometimes information doesn't get to you in time. Everything you mentioned is true, and none of it is random. Something truly random would be if a baneling detonation did not confirm 1 out of every 27 times (due to errors in coding). But people deliberately use "random" and "luck" because they want to abdicate responsibility. If a loss is "random" then it can never hurt your ego because you never had a choice in the matter. So in the end it is just a defensive mechanism. You're being deliberately obtuse because you're upset about an issue of semantics. Nothing you're saying actually contradicts anything, you're just upset about the standard usage of the language within SC2. Pragmatics, not semantics. Not even a little bit, since your wording preferences just make communication difficult. Which is why I'm done responding to you. We don't actually disagree on the topic of the thread, as far as I can tell; you just would prefer different words. And that's fine, and I'm gonna let you tilt at that windmill in peace.
+1 for Don Quixote reference!!
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 04 2012 12:45 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 12:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 12:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 12:26 scph wrote:On July 04 2012 12:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:53 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 11:45 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:41 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
[quote]
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent. It's nobody else's fault but your own.
Believe it or not, there's someone else in the game. It's not just you against the AI. On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
MINDGAME YOUR OPPONENT.
Stop and think for a minute. You aren't the only player who chooses an opening. Your opponent does too, whether you try to mindgame them or not. Their opening is independent of yours. Sometimes they will 6-pool. Sometimes they'll 10-pool. Sometimes they'll 14-pool. Sometimes they'll 15-Hatch. There are games in which you will have completely random strictly BO losses because YOUR OPPONENT did a thing. You aren't always the proactive player. False. All opening builds are performed based on available information about the map, your opponent's mindset, and the score of the series. When your opponent opens 6 pool he makes a true/false assumption about what your opening build will be. None of this classifies as "random", "luck", or any nonsense like that. You might be right, but sometimes "randomness" and "luck" does play a factor in the outcome of a match. Notorious proxies and opponents just happening to scout it is quite random and lucky. Scouting that hidden spire at the edge of the map under a pooping overlord is quite random and lucky to me. You don't always "know" everything your opponent is doing. You don't always know a 6 pool is coming your way. Sometimes information doesn't get to you in time. Everything you mentioned is true, and none of it is random. Something truly random would be if a baneling detonation did not confirm 1 out of every 27 times (due to errors in coding). But people deliberately use "random" and "luck" because they want to abdicate responsibility. If a loss is "random" then it can never hurt your ego because you never had a choice in the matter. So in the end it is just a defensive mechanism. You're being deliberately obtuse because you're upset about an issue of semantics. Nothing you're saying actually contradicts anything, you're just upset about the standard usage of the language within SC2. Pragmatics, not semantics. Not even a little bit, since your wording preferences just make communication difficult. Which is why I'm done responding to you. We don't actually disagree on the topic of the thread, as far as I can tell; you just would prefer different words. And that's fine, and I'm gonna let you tilt at that windmill in peace.
Goodbye, wonderful man who pretends to understand theoretical linguistics. Perhaps we will meet in another world where words are just words.
EDIT: As far as I am aware, there is no reason why we were arguing in the first place.
|
ZvZ early game is so volatile primarily because of 3 reasons I thinik.
1.Speedling is so fast
2.Zerg cannot wall well
3.Banelig 35 damage = Zergling 35 health
1.It takes only about 20sec for speedlings to travel natural to natural. So, the time to prepare is insanely shorter than any other match ups even if you scout it early.
2.Protoss and Terran can just wall when ling based army swarms your natural. Zerg can block ramp with 2 queens, but it is not nearly as solid.
3.Single baneling can kill up to 20 lings or so. For 0.5 larvae worth 50min25gas killing 10 larvae worth 500min could happen at any point if you happen to look away from your lings.
This is no QQ nor complain. Just my thoughts on why it is volatile.
|
On July 04 2012 12:47 Whole wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:45 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 12:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 12:38 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 12:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 12:26 scph wrote:On July 04 2012 12:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:53 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On July 04 2012 11:45 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 04 2012 11:41 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
[quote]
Believe it or not, there's someone else in the game. It's not just you against the AI. On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
you attempt to mindgame your opponent.
On July 04 2012 10:43 CosmicSpiral wrote:
MINDGAME YOUR OPPONENT.
Stop and think for a minute. You aren't the only player who chooses an opening. Your opponent does too, whether you try to mindgame them or not. Their opening is independent of yours. Sometimes they will 6-pool. Sometimes they'll 10-pool. Sometimes they'll 14-pool. Sometimes they'll 15-Hatch. There are games in which you will have completely random strictly BO losses because YOUR OPPONENT did a thing. You aren't always the proactive player. False. All opening builds are performed based on available information about the map, your opponent's mindset, and the score of the series. When your opponent opens 6 pool he makes a true/false assumption about what your opening build will be. None of this classifies as "random", "luck", or any nonsense like that. You might be right, but sometimes "randomness" and "luck" does play a factor in the outcome of a match. Notorious proxies and opponents just happening to scout it is quite random and lucky. Scouting that hidden spire at the edge of the map under a pooping overlord is quite random and lucky to me. You don't always "know" everything your opponent is doing. You don't always know a 6 pool is coming your way. Sometimes information doesn't get to you in time. Everything you mentioned is true, and none of it is random. Something truly random would be if a baneling detonation did not confirm 1 out of every 27 times (due to errors in coding). But people deliberately use "random" and "luck" because they want to abdicate responsibility. If a loss is "random" then it can never hurt your ego because you never had a choice in the matter. So in the end it is just a defensive mechanism. You're being deliberately obtuse because you're upset about an issue of semantics. Nothing you're saying actually contradicts anything, you're just upset about the standard usage of the language within SC2. Pragmatics, not semantics. Not even a little bit, since your wording preferences just make communication difficult. Which is why I'm done responding to you. We don't actually disagree on the topic of the thread, as far as I can tell; you just would prefer different words. And that's fine, and I'm gonna let you tilt at that windmill in peace. +1 for Don Quixote reference!!
What's the exchange ratio between regular +1s and +1 internets? I can never tell. :-)
|
On July 04 2012 12:49 Orek wrote:
ZvZ early game is so volatile primarily because of 3 reasons I thinik.
1.Speedling is so fast
2.Zerg cannot wall well
3.Banelig 35 damage = Zergling 35 health
1.It takes only about 20sec for speedlings to travel natural to natural. So, the time to prepare is insanely shorter than any other match ups even if you scout it early.
2.Protoss and Terran can just wall when ling based army swarms your natural. Zerg can block ramp with 2 queens, but it is not nearly as solid.
3.Single baneling can kill up to 20 lings or so. For 0.5 larvae worth 50min25gas killing 10 larvae worth 500min could happen at any point if you happen to look away from your lings.
This is no QQ nor complain. Just my thoughts on why it is volatile.
I find mid game volatility is due to the roach. Small advantages in roach numbers or an upgrade difference seem to spiral out of control so quickly. Not saying that upgrads shouldn't be an advantage, but they're maybe too much IMO.
|
On July 04 2012 05:01 Ireniicus wrote:
Idra is not a good player to quote as he historically does not bring rational argument to anything strategic (anyone that claims "MKP is terrible" is clearly not a logical thinker). Z V Z is getting better and better. I think the recent patch changes have done wonders as I have seen alot of very good zvz's lately...not something I could have said 3 months ago.
Really? I think you miss alot of what he says then cause generally outside of talking about ZvP he is very articulate and brings alot of knowledge to the table. Hence why his opinion is so sought after. I think people need to think unbiasly before they spew forth falsehoods.Though you're talking about ZvZ an have less of an understanding then he does since he plays at a higher level an you expect people to listen to what you have to say. So just stop and think before you speak the next time please.
|
If ZvZ is as volatile as people suggested Nestea wouldn't have a massive 78% winrate in ZvZ and over 85% before his decline.
Its not volatile, its a pretty skill based matchup. But it is a boring matchup
|
Every ZvZ feels so up in the air right now. People can lose a game off build order in the first 10 mins. A person can easily get hard countered blindly. ATM no one can go muta cause it's so risky and no one can go hydra's cause they're made of glass, tier three is a dream if your constantly exchanging roach festor for roach festor. Unless someone makes a break through in the current meta pretty soon ZvZ probably won't get "fixed" till HoTS which is sad because it would be nice to see a game go past 10 mins and not turn into who can mass roaches/festors and snipe the most hatches.
|
On July 04 2012 08:12 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 07:47 SupLilSon wrote:On July 04 2012 06:09 sekritzzz wrote:On July 04 2012 05:19 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On July 04 2012 05:01 Ireniicus wrote:
Idra is not a good player to quote as he historically does not bring rational argument to anything strategic (anyone that claims "MKP is terrible" is clearly not a logical thinker). Z V Z is getting better and better. I think the recent patch changes have done wonders as I have seen alot of very good zvz's lately...not something I could have said 3 months ago. except that about 8-10 months ago he predicted exactly what zvp would look like now. Right in the middle of all the haters and qqers. What did he actually predict about the the state of ZvP? 8-10 months ago, the only thing I remember is him whining about Collusus death balls and jamming roach/hydra on them, and him discrediting good players because of their race (ex: Idra calling Morrow a Gold-level player if he didnt play the abusive race of terran.) So really... I don't blame people if they dont take idra seriously when it comes to the state of a match up or balance issues. IdrA has shown countless times that despite performance, his analysis of the game is top notch. He expounded on the need for the ovie buff a year before Blizz finally implemented it. MorroW has not won anything since switching to Zerg from Terran.. If you've seen any of his casting, it is on par if not above Artosis and Day9 in terms of analytical value. Not to mention, his performance vs. Koreans is among the best for foreigners, despite all the hate he gets. Sorry but most people consider Morrow way more succesful than Idra as a zerg player, in terms of skill at least, not PR/popularity. Not to mention, each persons record speaks for itself Morrow 51% win rateIdra 33% win rateAs far as the ovie buff call a year ago.... really? You're picking at straws now. If you haven't noticed almost 50% of the units in sc2 got buffed/nerfed so it isn't hard to notice which units need buffs/nerfs. A far more amazing thing is to hear a pro-gamer predict the metagame before it happens. That shows he is ahead of the curve.
I love the lengths IdrA haters will go to to legitimize their claims. It's funny how they consistently throw critical thinking out the window. One look at IdrA's recent opponents compared to MorroW's recent opponents tells a totally different story from simply posting arbitrary percentages. And as far as the ovie buff goes, I'd agree that it was picking at straws if IdrA didn't give essentially the same reasoning for the buff as Blizzard did.
|
On July 04 2012 13:10 iky43210 wrote:
If ZvZ is as volatile as people suggested Nestea wouldn't have a massive 78% winrate in ZvZ and over 85% before his decline.
Its not volatile, its a pretty skill based matchup. But it is a boring matchup
Being volatile does not necessarily mean coin-flipply.
I think ZvZ is volatile, but NOT coin-flippy as your Nestea example shows.
Look how ZvZ was like in BW a couple years ago. Make 12 drones, OK done with droning forever. It was that volatile. Yet, there was a non-mirror match up called JvZ, which shows the match up was nowhere near coin-flippy but skill-based
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
I used to hate ZvZ but I actually really like it now >.>
|
On July 04 2012 13:35 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 13:10 iky43210 wrote:
If ZvZ is as volatile as people suggested Nestea wouldn't have a massive 78% winrate in ZvZ and over 85% before his decline.
Its not volatile, its a pretty skill based matchup. But it is a boring matchup Being volatile does not necessarily mean coin-flipply. I think ZvZ is volatile, but NOT coin-flippy as your Nestea example shows. Look how ZvZ was like in BW a couple years ago. Make 12 drones, OK done with droning forever. It was that volatile. Yet, there was a non-mirror match up called JvZ, which shows the match up was nowhere near coin-flippy but skill-based
volatile implies inconsistency, and so does coin-flipping. I don't see how you can argue that the matchup is volatile yet when there are many players with great consistency
I think the word you're looking for is stale
|
On July 04 2012 13:15 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 08:12 sekritzzz wrote:On July 04 2012 07:47 SupLilSon wrote:On July 04 2012 06:09 sekritzzz wrote:On July 04 2012 05:19 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On July 04 2012 05:01 Ireniicus wrote:
Idra is not a good player to quote as he historically does not bring rational argument to anything strategic (anyone that claims "MKP is terrible" is clearly not a logical thinker). Z V Z is getting better and better. I think the recent patch changes have done wonders as I have seen alot of very good zvz's lately...not something I could have said 3 months ago. except that about 8-10 months ago he predicted exactly what zvp would look like now. Right in the middle of all the haters and qqers. What did he actually predict about the the state of ZvP? 8-10 months ago, the only thing I remember is him whining about Collusus death balls and jamming roach/hydra on them, and him discrediting good players because of their race (ex: Idra calling Morrow a Gold-level player if he didnt play the abusive race of terran.) So really... I don't blame people if they dont take idra seriously when it comes to the state of a match up or balance issues. IdrA has shown countless times that despite performance, his analysis of the game is top notch. He expounded on the need for the ovie buff a year before Blizz finally implemented it. MorroW has not won anything since switching to Zerg from Terran.. If you've seen any of his casting, it is on par if not above Artosis and Day9 in terms of analytical value. Not to mention, his performance vs. Koreans is among the best for foreigners, despite all the hate he gets. Sorry but most people consider Morrow way more succesful than Idra as a zerg player, in terms of skill at least, not PR/popularity. Not to mention, each persons record speaks for itself Morrow 51% win rateIdra 33% win rateAs far as the ovie buff call a year ago.... really? You're picking at straws now. If you haven't noticed almost 50% of the units in sc2 got buffed/nerfed so it isn't hard to notice which units need buffs/nerfs. A far more amazing thing is to hear a pro-gamer predict the metagame before it happens. That shows he is ahead of the curve. I love the lengths IdrA haters will go to to legitimize their claims. It's funny how they consistently throw critical thinking out the window. One look at IdrA's recent opponents compared to MorroW's recent opponents tells a totally different story from simply posting arbitrary percentages. And as far as the ovie buff goes, I'd agree that it was picking at straws if IdrA didn't give essentially the same reasoning for the buff as Blizzard did.
I'm not responding to you, I'm responding to the guy you quoted... Morrow doesn't play ZvZ, PERIOD.
|
I always find it amusing when someone describes a mirror matchup as "Coin Flippy" because they always have some crude reasoning which never makes sense.
I know of Pros that offrace instead of playing ZvZ and IMO it's just stupid.
|
Saying that a mirror MU needs balancing seems like the weirdest thing ever.
ZvZ is the only mirror where you can chose from a wide range of BO at start and win. Also is the funniest MU if you have balls of steel (and crazy hands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
