So, ZvZ tends to be the least favorite matchup, overall, right now. It's hectic, it's difficult to gauge, and a lot of players simply don't understand it. I was recently able to talk with IdrA to discuss some of the basics of standard Roach-based ZvZ as well as to get his thoughts on the matchup in general. In it, he admits that, for him, a lot of the midgame is very uncertain, and he "just kind of [does] stuff." He also says that, though the ZvZ metagame is not in a good place right now, the problem is on the players' end and is not an issue of balance.
Speaking broadly on ZvZ, IdrA believes that the only problem with it, per se, is that no one seems to fully understand it yet. Though many StarCraft II fans tend to place the matchup alongside early-2011 PvP in terms of enjoyment, there is no stagnancy in the sense that you have to do one specific build (or minor variations thereof) in order to stand a chance. In fact, IdrA believes the opposite is the problem. “It’s too dynamic,” he says. “There are so many different possible builds and styles and strategies that everything feels very random and hard to be good at–in a bad way.” He adds, though, that “it is the kind of thing that could be solved as players get better and more experienced. I don’t think any patching needs to be aimed at ZvZ for the time being.”
So, there is a lot going on in ZvZ. While the early game has been mapped out fairly thoroughly, most everything past the early midgame relies on knowing what your opponent is doing and understanding when you’re safe to build your tech and economy. From there, the matchup seems to be a constant test of pressure and harassment. With no hard counters being available to the enemy composition in most ZvZ scenarios, success is largely a matter of on-the-spot decision making coupled with, of course, strong mechanics. While this matchup may currently be the one that players and fans enjoy the least, there is something special about a matchup that requires constant analysis of the other player’s strategic moves. While it can be frustrating, for sure, to play such a chaotic type of game, it can also feel extremely rewarding when one comes out on top.
What do you think? I personally have been doing pretty well with ZvZ on the ladder, but virtually everyone else I've heard from loathes the match. Does anyone else here not mind ZvZ?
ZvZ is a matchup mostly of mindgames. Its similar to PvP in the respect that the smallest decision can impact the game overall. The volatility of ZvZ comes from the speed of the units and zergs natural weak defense. My favorite matchup when mutas aren't involved imo.
edit: also, quoting Idra adds nothing to the discussion..get an interview from nestea or drg.
While Nestea is extremely good at ZvZ, i dont think its fair to say that Idra adds nothing to the discussion. His best match up is ZvZ at least from my experience watching him play. It might be because of his better mechanics but i think ZvZ comes to a lot of scouting, and the way zerg produces units.
On July 04 2012 04:51 zeratul_jf wrote: While Nestea is extremely good at ZvZ, i dont think its fair to say that Idra adds nothing to the discussion. His best match up is ZvZ at least from my experience watching him play. It might be because of his better mechanics but i think ZvZ comes to a lot of scouting, and the way zerg produces units.
His worst mu is ZvZ..his best is ZvT..according to him anyway.
Also: its strange when scouting comes into play as both players usually know what each others are doing.
On July 04 2012 04:51 zeratul_jf wrote: While Nestea is extremely good at ZvZ, i dont think its fair to say that Idra adds nothing to the discussion. His best match up is ZvZ at least from my experience watching him play. It might be because of his better mechanics but i think ZvZ comes to a lot of scouting, and the way zerg produces units.
His worst mu is ZvZ..his best is ZvT..according to him anyway.
Also: its strange when scouting comes into play as both players usually know what each others are doing.
Yea according to him, but take into account that because they like to play a match up doesnt mean that they always do good in it. I mean stephano said his best was ZvT, but his ZvP had a better record. While this could be because he faces higher lvl players that play T rather than P, but its enough to proof my point that a players self proclaimed best match up isnt always their best per say.
While at the start is really easy to see what your opponent is doing because there is no denying overloads, mid and on is a different story. As more creep is around for your queens to deny vision, also mutas could come into play. But i meant scouting as in when is my opponent building and army, when is he droning. And because of the way zerg is one can go from hey im done droning to bam mass army in a few production cycles.
On July 04 2012 04:51 zeratul_jf wrote: While Nestea is extremely good at ZvZ, i dont think its fair to say that Idra adds nothing to the discussion. His best match up is ZvZ at least from my experience watching him play. It might be because of his better mechanics but i think ZvZ comes to a lot of scouting, and the way zerg produces units.
His worst mu is ZvZ..his best is ZvT..according to him anyway.
Also: its strange when scouting comes into play as both players usually know what each others are doing.
Yea according to him, but take into account that because they like to play a match up doesnt mean that they always do good in it. I mean stephano said his best was ZvT, but his ZvP had a better record. While this could be because he faces higher lvl players that play T rather than P, but its enough to proof my point that a players self proclaimed best match up isnt always their best per say.
While at the start is really easy to see what your opponent is doing because there is no denying overloads, mid and on is a different story. As more creep is around for your queens to deny vision, also mutas could come into play. But i meant scouting as in when is my opponent building and army, when is he droning. And because of the way zerg is one can go from hey im done droning to bam mass army in a few production cycles.
That's where the danger of ZvZ comes in, ZvZ is the enbodiment of JulyZerg..Determining whether your opponent is droning or army is the difference between winning and losing.
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.
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.
didnt sirscoots already tell you to not look at anything related to EG? didnt get the clue, huh?
blog was meh. nothing groundbreaking in it. always nice to see pro-players thoughts though.
I'm not surprised he is voicing that patching is not needed to fix zvz, after warp gates, and pylons got nerfed to "fix pvp" (then archons became massive to break FF's, immortals got a range buff to fix 1/1/1, and they changed how ramp vision works, yet somehow 4 gate is still the most popular option in pvp)
The warp gate nerf to fix pvp had a bigger impact on pvz and pvt. I wouldn't want them to patch ZvZ either after seeing that, they might nerf larva inject, banlings, or ling speed.
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.
didnt sirscoots already tell you to not look at anything related to EG? didnt get the clue, huh?
I never ever saw one good post from you. I would like it if you dont visit tl anymore. Will you do it? Or do you decide on your own what to watch and what not?
Also being consistently good at ZvZ involves intuitive reads and knowing the limitations of your opponent's options. Since there are no hard build orders and general strategies, it's no wonder that many players struggle in it.
In terms of another game, ZvZ vs PvP is like using Dormammu vs Morrigan in UMvC3
I actually really like ZvZ. How can it be a bad thing that there are so many viable styles ? (what Idra describes as randomness). I'll take that over PvZ any day. A matchup that is basically defined from the beginning to the end is a bad matchup in my opinion.
On July 04 2012 05:17 CrtBalorda wrote: I have my hopes up that ZvZ evolves into something more the what it was in brood war, and then it might actully be an interesting matchup.
I want it to be on the same level of fun and fairnes as PvP and TvT.
ZvZ will never be standardized. Every mirror matchup exaggerates the strengths of the race involved, and that is simply not zerg works.
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.
I think ZvZ is a pretty good matchup tho. Not to be harsh or anything.. At least it's not worse than PvP or TvT.. ZvZ games are more interesting than the other mirror matchs. Well as of now more protoss players as myself tends to use carriers late game but that's just new.
ZvZ with all the fungals/macro to 200/200 asap with roachs, or some muta harass etcetc is quite interesting imo. And the ZvZ matchup itself i think many "understands it" but haven't evolved it enough yet like every other matchup.
As a protoss player, honestly this article is nice, to get an idea of what the matchup is like. The article pretty much does what it says, which perhaps casters might find useful.
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.
and that mass ghosts would be the new thing (then snipe nerf...)
If scouted, 2-base muta is vulnerable to preemptive mass roach timing. I frequently get wins this way.
Also, as long as you have a pack of 16-20 speedlings, you can prevent the player going muta from taking his 3rd, because you can snipe with speedling run-by just as easily as he can prevent your 3rd.
On July 04 2012 05:19 Flossy wrote: I for one love to watch ZvZ. It's so micro intensive and random. Never knowing what will happen and the smallest mistake makes you lose.
But I hate playing it. So frustrating. :/
Agreed watching it is fun but playing it can be very frustrating.
ZvZ is a fun matchup to watch, especially when you get Stephano's upgraded ling -> Ultras craziness vs standard Roach builds.
All the mirrors are evolving into epic matchups, just recently we had Squirtle vs MC, then before that we had Violet vs Symbol at Spring Arena, and TvT has been solid forever. Tbh I prefer the mirrors to the non-mirrors in many ways atm.
On July 04 2012 05:17 CrtBalorda wrote: I have my hopes up that ZvZ evolves into something more the what it was in brood war, and then it might actully be an interesting matchup.
I want it to be on the same level of fun and fairnes as PvP and TvT.
You mean muta vs muta? I'm not sure we will see that, I'm no expert but I think that larva inject makes zergling and roach play stronger than it would be in BW. Since you have more larva / hatchery you will be able to produce more units, especially those that are cheap. Basically if you rush for mutalisks the other play will be able to get a ton of cheap units because he will have so much larva. I could be wrong obviously it's just some thought I have.
I enjoy to watch zergling-baneling wars due to the pace but the roach midgame is so dull.
On July 04 2012 04:46 Sc2Null wrote: ZvZ is a matchup mostly of mindgames. Its similar to PvP in the respect that the smallest decision can impact the game overall. The volatility of ZvZ comes from the speed of the units and zergs natural weak defense. My favorite matchup when mutas aren't involved imo.
edit: also, quoting Idra adds nothing to the discussion..get an interview from nestea or drg.
You dont have to be a dick. Idra is very experienced progamer im sure he knows wtf he is talking about
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.
Early ZvZ's were a micro-fest. In games like those could gauge the actual skill of a player. These days everyone plays the "safe" FE/Roach builds. Unless you do something plain retarded you will not die. "PSHHPHSSSPHSSSSWIEEEEWIEEEIWEEEEE".
On July 04 2012 04:46 Sc2Null wrote: ZvZ is a matchup mostly of mindgames. Its similar to PvP in the respect that the smallest decision can impact the game overall. The volatility of ZvZ comes from the speed of the units and zergs natural weak defense. My favorite matchup when mutas aren't involved imo.
edit: also, quoting Idra adds nothing to the discussion..get an interview from nestea or drg.
You dont have to be a dick. Idra is very experienced progamer im sure he knows wtf he is talking about
I might get warned for saying this, but Idra has more interviews than actual tournament wins. Not like it matters, he's very experienced progamer and stuff.
On July 04 2012 04:46 Sc2Null wrote: ZvZ is a matchup mostly of mindgames. Its similar to PvP in the respect that the smallest decision can impact the game overall. The volatility of ZvZ comes from the speed of the units and zergs natural weak defense. My favorite matchup when mutas aren't involved imo.
edit: also, quoting Idra adds nothing to the discussion..get an interview from nestea or drg.
You dont have to be a dick. Idra is very experienced progamer im sure he knows wtf he is talking about
I might get warned for saying this, but Idra has more interviews than actual tournament wins. Not like it matters, he's very experienced progamer and stuff.
So does every other good player. Because if you are a popular player you'll get interviewed at every tournament and people will be asking for interviews in between tournaments as well. It's just that interviews from equally skilled players don't stand out as much, because they're not as popular as Idra.
On July 04 2012 05:58 Skwid1g wrote:So does every other good player. Because if you are a popular player you'll get interviewed at every tournament and people will be asking for interviews in between tournaments as well. It's just that interviews from equally skilled players don't stand out as much, because they're not as popular as Idra.
No? Being popular and being good are pretty different things, sir. There are players that figured out ZvZ. Just because one popular player can't do it, he starts posting random stuff and it get re-posted to different sites and this is how a myth is born. And after it, come Blizzard "Oh, hey, guys, a lot of people say that *** is overpowered. Let's nerf it".
IdrA's opinion on how match-ups will evolve has historically been correct from what I can recall. I don't think this is such a good article though, it's a bit light on real analysis.
Also, if people will whine and complain every time they see the name IdrA then what's IdrA's incentive for caring about what any of you think? Or reading these forums? Some people seem to forget that he is just an adolescent barely in his twenties that likes competing and playing video games. He does not owe you anything and you have no right to expect him to fulfill any of your bizarre fantasies of a pro-gamer that plays games 14 hours a day and has no opinions about anything. How pathetic is it to go to every thread involving him and complain that he should shut his mouth and practice?
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.
Please...why we need to hear the opinion of Idra...? I may listen to someone who is good at Starcraft or at least does well currently, not someone who has 33% W/L ratio in 2012...Code S zergs for example.
From what i see, people that utilize things like nydus worms, focus on upgrades and has good usage of infestors, don't seem to have problems with ZvZ. I would take Symbol as an example.
sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Not much to see here. Just a scripted interview made by EG's pr team to make as much money as possible. I doubt these are idra's genuine and original opinions. EG went through an entire process of PR and editing to create a perfect article with the sole purpose of getting as many views as possible so they make money. I mean why the hell would idra want to share his opinions, if not to make as much money as possible. We all know that Idra's true opinion would be more like "omg zvz total coinflip can't win even tho i'm more skilled blizzard are imbeciles," but this wouldn't be as popular as a totally scripted interview that has been designed to be as popular as possible to get the maximum amount of viewers possible. just the same old corporate scheming to find out ways to make as much possible money with no consideration for the consumer
idra is pretty much right though. If you watch a lot of zvz's, every single one is different. That's all he's saying and I have to agree based on the zvz's I've seen recently.
You've got the occasional lings/blings wars. The mass roach wars. The hydra is becoming a lot more popular all of the sudden. People are researching drops and doing massive drops with roaches. Surprise buttrape nydus is being used a lot. Muta's were really popular, then got raped by fungals, now people split their muta's and are raping infestors. Even ultra's and broodlords are seeing their uses. And there's no real indication of what can or will happen in a zvz. One moment you might have a ling/bling war and the next they're teching towards ultra's. you basically can't do anything wrong in this match up concerning strategy.
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.
You do realize that Morrow switched to zerg late 2010 right? 7 month ago IdrA was saying that Morrow had a very interesting ZvP style with lings and bling drops and was actually very good.
As for his view on ZvZ i don't really think there is anything groundbreaking, it's clear that every top player kinda do whatever... Symbol and DRG have good ZvZ records because they just have way better mechanics than most. Even Nestea who seemed to have all the openings and early roach timings down to the tee just looks like every other good zerg now (with actually less refined mechanics).
EDIT: wtf, i know the article is not the most fascinating but half of the posts are just retarded attacks on IdrA.
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
On July 04 2012 04:45 Paljas wrote: nestea doesnt mind zvz. and life neither
K. Cool comment. Did Idra say he minds it? He simply says it's got a lot of development and potential in store for the future. That being said, it follows that it's difficult for most if not all people to understand it fully.
I don't mind ZvZ, as long as Bnet doesn't give me 10 in a row. There is quite a number of strategies you can do and games turn out very differently, a big improvement from Broodwar methinks. The queen buff has improved the matchup too, because if you're sick of baneling wars, you can get pretty ling/bling proof with queens and spines and simply avoid it.
On July 04 2012 04:49 Existor wrote: Roach to roach. It's so interesting. I have hope for Hots, where that Roach-festor combo will not be an ultimate combo in zvz
My predictions are Swarmhost/Hydra with speed upgrade maybe complimented by a few vipers to counter infestors if needed.
Also: I dont mind ZvZ since I win like 90% of them somehow.
On July 04 2012 04:51 zeratul_jf wrote: While Nestea is extremely good at ZvZ, i dont think its fair to say that Idra adds nothing to the discussion. His best match up is ZvZ at least from my experience watching him play. It might be because of his better mechanics but i think ZvZ comes to a lot of scouting, and the way zerg produces units.
His worst mu is ZvZ..his best is ZvT..according to him anyway.
Also: its strange when scouting comes into play as both players usually know what each others are doing.
Yea according to him, but take into account that because they like to play a match up doesnt mean that they always do good in it. I mean stephano said his best was ZvT, but his ZvP had a better record. While this could be because he faces higher lvl players that play T rather than P, but its enough to proof my point that a players self proclaimed best match up isnt always their best per say.
While at the start is really easy to see what your opponent is doing because there is no denying overloads, mid and on is a different story. As more creep is around for your queens to deny vision, also mutas could come into play. But i meant scouting as in when is my opponent building and army, when is he droning. And because of the way zerg is one can go from hey im done droning to bam mass army in a few production cycles.
your best match up is, for the most part, the one you're most comfortable in. winrate doesn't always matter
I love watching ZvZ, very hard to play though. I love how, like in TvT, every unit is viable to an extent, and there is so much room for micro and mind games.
I agree, I love watching ZvZ! Some matchups like TvT or PvZ can get super stale and predictable, but ZvZ always seems to be a crazy damn ride every game...it's a refreshing change to watch sometimes.
I'll take ZvZ over ZvP any day. Balance completely aside, ZvP is fucking boring.
Everything he says in the article seems really solid to me, especially the 15 pool/15 hatch opening over 14pool/14 gas. However I think he's kind of throwing hydras aside too quickly. I think ZvZ is the one match up where they're actually a stable strategy, unlike ZvP where at certain points in the match up they become almost useless. Also I think against the ling/infester/ultra style hydras become much better. Kind of hard to know though because of how often it happens.
IDK about the least favorite match-up part... ZvZ is actually pretty fun to watch AND to play. I even find some zvz matches much more entertaining than the ZvP late game "vortex broodlord dance".
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
From pms:
Original Message From dAPhREAk: i'll leave tl.net when you learn not to whine so much about idra.
Original Message From skeldark: Deal. I will never ever mention his name or him again! Lets see if you stand to your word!
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
Original Message From skeldark: Deal. I will never ever mention his name or him again! Lets see if you stand to your word!
Thats how you hold your word...
lol. you going less than a couple hours without bitching like a child is not enough. this really isn't an issue for this topic though. keep it in PMs if you want to discuss it.
On July 01 2012 02:25 IdrA wrote: how on earth is this still going on avilo is a joke of a person, anyone who has watched him play, read anything hes written, or heard anything hes said knows that. he kind of tried to act presentable on the show, but he opened up trying to bitch at geoff and then as soon as i started talking he was talking over me and saying i agreed with him when i didnt.
i was very short with him because i know his past outside the show and know he's not worth dealing with. just because someone tones it down once they get a big stage to preach their bullshit from doesnt make them any less of a waste of time. jp brought him on for some cheap laughs, he shouldntve done that and hes apologized, both publicly and to me, and it wont happen again. but avilo isnt supposed to be taken seriously and the fact that this has generated pages of discussion is absurd.
Can be but same for you. Noone take you serious any-more so this is not about you. Its more about incontroll and jp because they had reputation to loose.
On July 04 2012 04:43 KingOctavious wrote: the problem is on the players' end and is not an issue of balance.
How could a mirror match ever have balance issues, lol?
He used the wrong words, rather, what he meant to say is that there is not an issue of certain playstyles being too limiting, like PvP had for a long time before the multiple 4 gate nerfs, and TvT had with blue flame hellions before the blue flame nerf.
If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
From pms:
Original Message From dAPhREAk: i'll leave tl.net when you learn not to whine so much about idra.
Original Message From skeldark: Deal. I will never ever mention his name or him again! Lets see if you stand to your word!
Thats how you hold your word...
lol. you going less than a couple hours without bitching like a child is not enough. this really isn't an issue for this topic though. keep it in PMs if you want to discuss it.
On July 01 2012 02:25 IdrA wrote: how on earth is this still going on avilo is a joke of a person, anyone who has watched him play, read anything hes written, or heard anything hes said knows that. he kind of tried to act presentable on the show, but he opened up trying to bitch at geoff and then as soon as i started talking he was talking over me and saying i agreed with him when i didnt.
i was very short with him because i know his past outside the show and know he's not worth dealing with. just because someone tones it down once they get a big stage to preach their bullshit from doesnt make them any less of a waste of time. jp brought him on for some cheap laughs, he shouldntve done that and hes apologized, both publicly and to me, and it wont happen again. but avilo isnt supposed to be taken seriously and the fact that this has generated pages of discussion is absurd.
Can be but same for you. Noone take you serious any-more so this is not about you. Its more about incontroll and jp because they had reputation to loose.
Last post about this. this post was before you pm me like you know. You make a promise and break your word, No way to talk yourself out. If you dont have the honor to hold your word atleast have the honor to admit this. And im no idra hater,. This guy offended me person couple of time without reason but i dont know him personal so how could i hate him?
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
From pms:
Original Message From dAPhREAk: i'll leave tl.net when you learn not to whine so much about idra.
Original Message From skeldark: Deal. I will never ever mention his name or him again! Lets see if you stand to your word!
Thats how you hold your word...
lol. you going less than a couple hours without bitching like a child is not enough. this really isn't an issue for this topic though. keep it in PMs if you want to discuss it.
On July 01 2012 02:41 skeldark wrote:
On July 01 2012 02:25 IdrA wrote: how on earth is this still going on avilo is a joke of a person, anyone who has watched him play, read anything hes written, or heard anything hes said knows that. he kind of tried to act presentable on the show, but he opened up trying to bitch at geoff and then as soon as i started talking he was talking over me and saying i agreed with him when i didnt.
i was very short with him because i know his past outside the show and know he's not worth dealing with. just because someone tones it down once they get a big stage to preach their bullshit from doesnt make them any less of a waste of time. jp brought him on for some cheap laughs, he shouldntve done that and hes apologized, both publicly and to me, and it wont happen again. but avilo isnt supposed to be taken seriously and the fact that this has generated pages of discussion is absurd.
Can be but same for you. Noone take you serious any-more so this is not about you. Its more about incontroll and jp because they had reputation to loose.
Last post about this. this post was before you pm me like you know. You make a promise and break your word, No way to talk yourself out. If you dont have the honor to hold your word atleast have the honor to admit this.
On July 04 2012 05:48 artosismermaid wrote: this guy talks far too much about sc2 and doesn't play enough of it
I can sort of understand the sentiment, but it's pretty stupid. That's like going to a sports bar and telling people they spend too much time watching and discussing football and not enough time playing it. It's an eSport, you don't have to play it to enjoy it and discuss it. That being said, it doesn't mean people know what they are talking about, but it's nice to see enough people are interested in it to discuss so many different aspects of the culture.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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 cat jumping on your lap during a baneling war?
Don't really understand how people can hate on ZvZ to the extent that we tend to see on the forums and in the LR threads. As said in the article, the general lack of hard counters make it much more a game of mechanics and mind games, i.e. like BW, which can only be a good thing.
If every matchup played like a mix between TvZ and ZvZ this game would be fucking amazing.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 04:43 KingOctavious wrote: the problem is on the players' end and is not an issue of balance.
How could a mirror match ever have balance issues, lol?
Can't be that hard. Imagine if one race had both vikings and colossi. It's not impossible, but it's very difficult to assess (especially in zvz where there's still such a focus on bread-and-butter units, that aren't like colossi)
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.
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
he doesn't get top 10 at all in MLG, Dreamhack, or any major tournaments he enters anymore. even when he was "good", he lost to hallucinated void rays, terrans blowing up their own command centers, and "walkovers" like cruncher he has a history of being a douche but in beta he could back it up, but now he just keeps losing credibility. it IS hilarious to see him rage though, so he's got that going for him. oh and that and calling koreans terrible, when they would roflstomp him in a bo10 showmatch
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
he doesn't get top 10 at all in MLG, Dreamhack, or any major tournaments he enters anymore. even when he was "good", he lost to hallucinated void rays, terrans blowing up their own command centers, and "walkovers" like cruncher he has a history of being a douche but in beta he could back it up, but now he just keeps losing credibility. it IS hilarious to see him rage though, so he's got that going for him. oh and that and calling koreans terrible, when they would roflstomp him in a bo10 showmatch
his results have been less than stellar this year--no doubt about that. but his history has shown he has staying power. he is more than qualified to express opinions on how the game is being played, and how the game will evolve.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
he doesn't get top 10 at all in MLG, Dreamhack, or any major tournaments he enters anymore. even when he was "good", he lost to hallucinated void rays, terrans blowing up their own command centers, and "walkovers" like cruncher he has a history of being a douche but in beta he could back it up, but now he just keeps losing credibility. it IS hilarious to see him rage though, so he's got that going for him. oh and that and calling koreans terrible, when they would roflstomp him in a bo10 showmatch
Bo10 exist?
Lacking results doesn't make him less right when talking about the game. In fact, I'd wager Idra is alot smart about the game than most foreigners at least, so to say he doesn't have results to take credibility from anythig he says is quite stupid, imo.
People claim IdrA has some of the best mechanics out there. That granted, wouldn't he be a tip top player then if he also understands the game so well (which he claims to do)? I mean, for me the guy just doesn't appear very credible in questions such as these. He has a big ego though, gotta give him that.
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
he doesn't get top 10 at all in MLG, Dreamhack, or any major tournaments he enters anymore. even when he was "good", he lost to hallucinated void rays, terrans blowing up their own command centers, and "walkovers" like cruncher he has a history of being a douche but in beta he could back it up, but now he just keeps losing credibility. it IS hilarious to see him rage though, so he's got that going for him. oh and that and calling koreans terrible, when they would roflstomp him in a bo10 showmatch
his results have been less than stellar this year--no doubt about that. but his history has shown he has staying power. he is more than qualified to express opinions on how the game is being played, and how the game will evolve.
jinro has made it to GSL round of 4. TWICE. no other foreigner has done that. but you know what, pains me to say this, but he is no longer good or relevant. i think he's a fantastic person and i love watching his stream. but results do not lie.
he gets a free pass though because he's a super nice guy, whereas idra is not. granted idra is more entertaining, but at least for me, i derive entertainment laughing *at* him, not with him.
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
he doesn't get top 10 at all in MLG, Dreamhack, or any major tournaments he enters anymore. even when he was "good", he lost to hallucinated void rays, terrans blowing up their own command centers, and "walkovers" like cruncher he has a history of being a douche but in beta he could back it up, but now he just keeps losing credibility. it IS hilarious to see him rage though, so he's got that going for him. oh and that and calling koreans terrible, when they would roflstomp him in a bo10 showmatch
his results have been less than stellar this year--no doubt about that. but his history has shown he has staying power. he is more than qualified to express opinions on how the game is being played, and how the game will evolve.
jinro has made it to GSL round of 4. TWICE. no other foreigner has done that. but you know what, pains me to say this, but he is no longer good or relevant. i think he's a fantastic person and i love watching his stream. but results do not lie.
he gets a free pass though because he's a super nice guy, whereas idra is not. granted idra is more entertaining, but at least for me, i derive entertainment laughing *at* him, not with him.
wait, are you saying jinro is not qualified to talk about the game as well?
On July 04 2012 08:05 Mouzone wrote: People claim IdrA has some of the best mechanics out there. That granted, wouldn't he be a tip top player then if he also understands the game so well (which he claims to do)? I mean, for me the guy just doesn't appear very credible in questions such as these. He has a big ego though, gotta give him that.
Weird how much a mental block sort of thing can hold you back. That's the only explenation I can find for him to do so extremely shitty this year. I don't think you should set the standards for him too high though, there are plenty players who have better mechanics and understands the game better than him. I don't think just being smart about the game is enough though, you gotta be able to put it into practical use as well
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
As 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.
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
Um yes? Just because the USSR was a superpower in the 70s doesnt mean they are now.
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.
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
As 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.
There was also the bunker nerf, the early rax nerf, the ghost nerf(he did predict mass ghost lategame before it happened) and the zerg buffs in ZvP(infestors, which were later nerfed back a notch after people actually started using them) A lot of the stuff Idra whined about ended up getting touched on in some way or the other. Not to legitimize everything he said, cus he did say some pretty ridicolous stuff as well
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.
wanting a buff is hardly "top notch" analysis.
shocker, the buff helped!
He didn't say that the need for an overlord buff was his top notch analysis. Go watch some casts with Idra, and you will see he is a really good analytical caster. Kind of dull if he isn't placed with someone who can throw out some humour to break up the sometimes monotone speech though
I don`t get the Idra hate here (and I`m not a fan). What he writes is pretty reasonable and sums up the general problems of ZvZ which is that it is unpredictable and volatile, at least in the early game. With the different macro technique ZvZ relies a lot on good calls about your opponents number of drones. Also with the baneling there is a huge hit-or-miss component in the early games. Because of those 2 aspects ZvZ differs a lot from TvT where also different builds are possible but the early feels way more stable. It is important to note, however, that Idra mostly blames the fact that the ZvZ matchup isn`t yet properly understood, whereas e.g TvT feels somewhat figured out. So just because some TLers dislike a player that doesn`t warrant this kind of hate-train.
I love the way that people can judge whether pro players are allowed to speak or not. Because the people judging obviously have more game knowledge than the pros, so they know that the pros are wrong.
The cognitive dissonance of telling pros that they aren't allowed to speak because they're not good enough and yet judging themselves worthy of speaking is mind boggling. Shocker: if only the people at the tiptop should be able to speak, why the fuck does TL or Reddit exist except as drama-aggregators and meme machines?
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
As 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.
There was also the bunker nerf, the early rax nerf, the ghost nerf(he did predict mass ghost lategame before it happened) and the zerg buffs in ZvP(infestors, which were later nerfed back a notch after people actually started using them) A lot of the stuff Idra whined about ended up getting touched on in some way or the other. Not to legitimize everything he said, cus he did say some pretty ridicolous stuff as well
Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
Second..about the things he "called". Do you understand why a cold reading works? A person always remembers the positive things, the things that came true. Do you also remember how many things that Idra wanted did not get rebalanced in the game.
Anyway, I don't mean any of this as insulting, I value Idra as an entertaining figure in the SC2 scene, similar to how I view InControl as an entertainer, and they put out a lot of content for our viewing pleasure...but I just can't view them as an authority when it comes to balance, or game knowledge anymore, and I really hope they will talk a bit less about balance, and a bit more about how they are planning to pick themselves up and become competitive again.
On July 04 2012 05:19 Flossy wrote: I for one love to watch ZvZ. It's so micro intensive and random. Never knowing what will happen and the smallest mistake makes you lose.
But I hate playing it. So frustrating. :/
Wait.. I think I've heard of another game where every matchup is similar to that.
On July 04 2012 07:29 McBengt wrote:As said in the article, the general lack of hard counters make it much more a game of mechanics and mind games, i.e. like BW, which can only be a good thing.
If every matchup played like a mix between TvZ and ZvZ this game would be fucking amazing.
Idra gets a lot of love and even more hate. Here are my thoughts.
Everything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. This goes for everyone. No one (aside from Day9 ) is all knowing when it comes to SC2. Idra's thoughts, especially when it comes to balance are typically over the top and not always true. That does not mean that it shouldn't hold some merit. Last weeks SOTG with Qxc is a good example. Some of the things Idra proposed are completely true and are overlooked. Terrans started complaining about imbalance in the match up before they even tried to adjust their builds. However, on the other hand Idra is too stubborn to see that there might be some factors that point both sides can be right. Far too often its "I'm right. Your a fucking retard." I remain a fan nonetheless as I think he is a good person and does do a lot to keep the community talking and together.
That said, interesting article. I'll have to read it more in depth. A few pages back this was noted but the early game is far too fragile but that might not necessarily force a buff/nerf. The queen range is already producing a bunch of new Queen focused ZvZ opens and I see this continuing to push the game forward. Time will tell but there's no reason to start attacking someone before you even take time to read what they have to say. Far too many people are focusing on the person and not the article itself. Thank you for sharing. I appreciate it!
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
As 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.
There was also the bunker nerf, the early rax nerf, the ghost nerf(he did predict mass ghost lategame before it happened) and the zerg buffs in ZvP(infestors, which were later nerfed back a notch after people actually started using them) A lot of the stuff Idra whined about ended up getting touched on in some way or the other. Not to legitimize everything he said, cus he did say some pretty ridicolous stuff as well
Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
Second..about the things he "called". Do you understand why a cold reading works? A person always remembers the positive things, the things that came true. Do you also remember how many things that Idra wanted did not get rebalanced in the game.
Anyway, I don't mean any of this as insulting, I value Idra as an entertaining figure in the SC2 scene, similar to how I view InControl as an entertainer, and they put out a lot of content for our viewing pleasure...but I just can't view them as an authority when it comes to balance, or game knowledge anymore, and I really hope they will talk a bit less about balance, and a bit more about how they are planning to pick themselves up and become competitive again.
So basically, you repeat everything I said. I said I didn't want to legitimize everything he said because he said a lot of bullshit as well. Or did you chose to ignore that part? In this particular article he isn't even talking about balance, and do you really think he talks too much about balance, and too little of how to fix his own play..? I find it hard to believe you actually think so
On July 04 2012 08:23 jmbthirteen wrote: Why did I expect a ZvZ discussion when I entered this thread? (snip)
Re: Idra hate / haters of Idra Hate -
Everyone's got their own opinion, and are entitled to it. A lot of posters, though, are discounting others' opinion wholesale. Oh wait, but why would I expect any different?
Anyways, let's all not take everything too seriously. Try to respect other posters.
--
As far as people from Germany or China &c posting - I don't know, maybe they don't know IdrA's history, and are honestly confused. Maybe it's easier for someone from NA or those more familiar with Idra's history.
A lot of controversy attaches to Idra's BM (bad manners) and temprament. It's true he used to perform very well and recently hasn't been doing so well, but that's secondary to his BM and temprament.
Suppose you know a genius auto mechanic that's always drunk and swearing and saying wild stuff. Now suppose he says that your car is making a weird noise and that it's going to explode in a couple days.
If this mechanic was just a genius auto mechanic, then you're going to take what he says very seriously and take your car in immediately for an inspection.
If this mechanic was just a regular auto mechanic, you might think he's maybe exaggerating, but you'll still think about taking your car in for an inspection really soon.
But this mechanic is ALWAYS saying wild stuff. The first time he saw your car he said you should be ashamed for driving a piece of crap like that and that you'd get better performance, speed, and attitude rom a donkey. When you saw him on the street, he said that you can use urine instead of engine oil for your car just so long as you change it every 500 miles. Etc. etc.
That's Idra.
Even when he's making sense, you're almost afraid to take it seriously, because it's Idra talking. He's not always saying outrageous or ridiculous stuff, but he does it regularly enough that it hurts his credibility. It might be that he's just someone that expresses his beliefs strongly. Or maybe he just likes to make up ridiculous and inflammatory stuff and behave badly, because he thinks it's fun. Or maybe he does things like these to psych out his opponents. Or maybe it's all part of a clever marketing scheme to give Idra a distinct identity in the egamer community. But regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that when Idra says something, it's Idra that's saying it. Even if it makes perfect sense, you have to think twice about accepting it at face value because of the source.
Is he saying it because he's analyzed it and thinks it's true? Is he saying it because he's mad at something that happened recently? Is he saying it as part of a publicity stunt? Is he saying it because he's just messing around? Is he saying it because he's playing mind games? Who knows?
So there's some very understandable backlash against taking Idra seriously.
I've never hated zvz, a lot of people I play on ladder attempt the zergling infestor with lots of counter attacking, and against my roach infestor play it's damn hard to take a 3rd but I always when after stopping a counter attack hard...
On July 04 2012 06:32 procrastibation wrote: Not much to see here. Just a scripted interview made by EG's pr team to make as much money as possible. I doubt these are idra's genuine and original opinions. EG went through an entire process of PR and editing to create a perfect article with the sole purpose of getting as many views as possible so they make money. I mean why the hell would idra want to share his opinions, if not to make as much money as possible. We all know that Idra's true opinion would be more like "omg zvz total coinflip can't win even tho i'm more skilled blizzard are imbeciles," but this wouldn't be as popular as a totally scripted interview that has been designed to be as popular as possible to get the maximum amount of viewers possible. just the same old corporate scheming to find out ways to make as much possible money with no consideration for the consumer
As a former writer for EG, I can honestly say 100% that there isn't a mysterious "PR team" that edits the hell out of every answer. While the answers may be cleaned slightly for grammar and readability, the opinions expressed are absolutely the unmolested opinions of the players.
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
As 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.
There was also the bunker nerf, the early rax nerf, the ghost nerf(he did predict mass ghost lategame before it happened) and the zerg buffs in ZvP(infestors, which were later nerfed back a notch after people actually started using them) A lot of the stuff Idra whined about ended up getting touched on in some way or the other. Not to legitimize everything he said, cus he did say some pretty ridicolous stuff as well
Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
Second..about the things he "called". Do you understand why a cold reading works? A person always remembers the positive things, the things that came true. Do you also remember how many things that Idra wanted did not get rebalanced in the game.
Anyway, I don't mean any of this as insulting, I value Idra as an entertaining figure in the SC2 scene, similar to how I view InControl as an entertainer, and they put out a lot of content for our viewing pleasure...but I just can't view them as an authority when it comes to balance, or game knowledge anymore, and I really hope they will talk a bit less about balance, and a bit more about how they are planning to pick themselves up and become competitive again.
So basically, you repeat everything I said. I said I didn't want to legitimize everything he said because he said a lot of bullshit as well. Or did you chose to ignore that part? In this particular article he isn't even talking about balance, and do you really think he talks too much about balance, and too little of how to fix his own play..? I find it hard to believe you actually think so
Sorry if I was not clear, I was not responding to you directly, but to the entire conversation and giving my opinion, if that matched much of what you said, then great!
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
ZVZ is my favorite matchup.I really like baneling wars, lots of high intensity micro/decision making. Its way more fun than roach wars. There is nothing better than being able to completely destroy a much larger ling/bling force because you have superior unit control. Unfortunately queen buff severely hurt this.
On July 04 2012 09:02 ShiroKaisen wrote:(snip) As a former writer for EG, I can honestly say 100% that there isn't a mysterious "PR team" that edits the hell out of every answer. While the answers may be cleaned slightly for grammar and readability, the opinions expressed are absolutely the unmolested opinions of the players.
That's exactly the sort of answer I would expect from a mysterious "PR team" for EG.
I expect you'll say this is just a coincidence.
Oddly enough, that would *also* be what I would expect from a mysterious "PR team" for EG.
On July 04 2012 09:17 adacan wrote: ZVZ is my favorite matchup.I really like baneling wars, lots of high intensity micro/decision making. Its way more fun than roach wars. There is nothing better than being able to completely destroy a much larger ling/bling force because you have superior unit control. Unfortunately queen buff severely hurt this.
From a spectator's point of view I agree, the baneling micro wars are extremely exciting. But from a competitive/player's point of view I think it is too volatile and unforgiving. Of course, usually the one with the best micro is going to win, but there are those times where you take a second to do injects and you lose 6 lings to a baneling, or that one time when you missed a few frames during a hectic moment or something, and those just feel so crappy
On July 04 2012 06:29 Fortii wrote: sad to watch that everything idra says evolves into a discussion about idra and all the haters feel the need to crawl out of theyr caves and post stupid stuff, instead of discussing the actual content. this community makes me scratch my head alot.
personally, i enjoy watching zvz, if the players are good at it and show some nice multitastking. but i also agree with that "interview", tier3 is rare and a lot of stuff beside roaches seem weak.
Well it only backfires for IdrA for shit he spitted out during early days of SC2. As long as he had results a lot of people take him as a jerk, but at least talented jerk. I guess for now we can remove talented part, at least in SC2 department...
is there an expiration date on results? idra has a long history of talent.
he doesn't get top 10 at all in MLG, Dreamhack, or any major tournaments he enters anymore. even when he was "good", he lost to hallucinated void rays, terrans blowing up their own command centers, and "walkovers" like cruncher he has a history of being a douche but in beta he could back it up, but now he just keeps losing credibility. it IS hilarious to see him rage though, so he's got that going for him. oh and that and calling koreans terrible, when they would roflstomp him in a bo10 showmatch
Just FYI, the hallucinated VR thing? He won that series, and was the highest-finishing Zerg. Just sayin'. It's a bit of a dumb example for you to bring up. Basically says you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I don't understand the OP's views on zvz. It is an extremely fun matchup to watch and play. It is hectic and I understand that it seems often very different from other matchups, but for this reason it is also extremely interesting. I think that idra is upset that he can't set his game plan in stone before the game starts like you can in the other zerg matchups, but that doesnt make it a bad matchup or "too dynamic".
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player. At this point Idra is neither a game designer, nor an incredibly skilled player (as in code S GSL).
It's interesting to watch, but I have to imagine that, at the highest level, it's hard as hell to play. There are more things happening that have to be reacted to sorta ad-hoc than in any other matchup, and at the highest level of play I can imagine that taking a serious mental toll.
Honestly the dynamic/random aspect of ZvZ is why I really enjoy watching the MU, however I can understand why that would make it frustrating to play. IMO the most stale match to watch right now is PvZ; if it goes past 18 minutes, it's just waiting for whether the Archon Toilet is going to land successfully or all out fail, however long it takes for that to happen.
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
On July 04 2012 09:35 Oiseaux wrote: Honestly the dynamic/random aspect of ZvZ is why I really enjoy watching the MU, however I can understand why that would make it frustrating to play. IMO the most stale match to watch right now is PvZ; if it goes past 18 minutes, it's just waiting for whether the Archon Toilet is going to land successfully, however long it takes for that to happen.
I totally agree. ZvP is terrible, just terrible. The Mothership-Archon/Broodlord-Infestor interactions are so, so bad.
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release...As a game designer myself I can not begin to explain to people how hard it is to build something as good as SC2.
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release.
and then we have ZvP, this amazing match up in the beautifully balanced game of SC2 where the devs are making amazing maps with great features, such as 3 pylon blockable ramps, rocks on 3rds, and they are truly doing everything in their power to make SC2 as marketable and enjoyable as possible! (This is said in a semi-jokingly manner, with an edge put on everything)
I don't like how he repeats that people "hate ZvZ" like it's an established fact though. To a lot of people it's the best mirror, and it's better than any Protoss matchup for sure.
On July 04 2012 09:44 MilesTeg wrote: Interesting article thanks.
I don't like how he repeats that people "hate ZvZ" like it's an established fact though. To a lot of people it's the best mirror, and it's better than any Protoss matchup for sure.
That's true, but I think it's fair to say that most people dislike it
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release...As a game designer myself I can not begin to explain to people how hard it is to build something as good as SC2.
If we're talking game design, I mostly agree. Speaking specifically about balance, though, it's pretty clear that... no. Sc2 as released wasn't even close to balanced. Look at stuff like 5-rax-reaper and 2-armor-1-supply Roaches. And even from the game design perspective, there's a lot of stuff like Fungal Growth, Marauders+Concussive Shell, Collossus, Mothership/Archon interactions with BroodFestor, and Force Field dependency which is the result of bad design.
On July 04 2012 09:44 MilesTeg wrote: Interesting article thanks.
I don't like how he repeats that people "hate ZvZ" like it's an established fact though. To a lot of people it's the best mirror, and it's better than any Protoss matchup for sure.
That's true, but I think it's fair to say that most people dislike it
But they're wrong :p
No, seriously I think a lot of people aren't giving it a chance (and mirrors tend to be less popular for people playing another race). It's dynamic, fast paced, depends entirely on skills and on non-stop action throughout the game. I have a lot more fun playing ZvZ than ZvP.
People may have some stupid losses from time to time but most of the time it's because of basic and avoidable positioning mistakes, not because you need god-like micro to play solid.
No doubt very "coin flippy", especially if you dislike using or playing against mutalisk. Just lost a game to some chobo where he literally made 50 spines on two base and went for the base trade whenever I moved out. Even nydus'd with a ton of queens and hydras and was successful but the fucker killed all my buildings before I killed his. I don't mind roach battles, ling baneling or whatever but Mutalisk can be downright silly in ZvZ.
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release...As a game designer myself I can not begin to explain to people how hard it is to build something as good as SC2.
If we're talking game design, I mostly agree. Speaking specifically about balance, though, it's pretty clear that... no. Sc2 as released wasn't even close to balanced. Look at stuff like 5-rax-reaper and 2-armor-1-supply Roaches. And even from the game design perspective, there's a lot of stuff like Fungal Growth, Marauders+Concussive Shell, Collossus, Mothership/Archon interactions with BroodFestor, and Force Field dependency which is the result of bad design.
I agree that it is definitely not perfectly designed. But it is hard to claim that there is such a thing as a perfect design. The more complex things get, the harder it is to make such a claim...Maybe for a paperclip, ok, but SC2 is incredibly complex. Just look at something "small" like a range buff on the queen has a big impact on the higher level of play, and this is just one unit, now scale this up to dozens of units, dozens of buildings, many different tech paths, different maps, and then take a group of maybe 5 designers (i don't think it is much more, would be counterproductive) who are responsible to balance this all out. All things considered I think they did a great job, maybe not a perfect job, but I do think it is a great one.
On July 04 2012 09:44 MilesTeg wrote: Interesting article thanks.
I don't like how he repeats that people "hate ZvZ" like it's an established fact though. To a lot of people it's the best mirror, and it's better than any Protoss matchup for sure.
That's true, but I think it's fair to say that most people dislike it
But they're wrong :p
No, seriously I think a lot of people aren't giving it a chance (and mirrors tend to be less popular for people playing another race). It's dynamic, fast paced, depends entirely on skills and on non-stop action throughout the game. I have a lot more fun playing ZvZ than ZvP.
People may have some stupid losses from time to time but most of the time it's because of basic and avoidable positioning mistakes, not because you need god-like micro to play solid.
ya, personally, I love watching ZvZ because it is so tense and exciting, and I mostly like playing it, but strictly from a competitive point of view it is kind of too volatile and unforgiving. I don't agree that it is based entirely on skill, because computers aren't perfect, Bnet isn't perfect, and you WILL lose a ZvZ because you dropped a couple frames during a hectic micro war once or twice when you play that much, and this is extremely offputting from a competitors point of view I think.
For me I think z v z is in a much better place than last year simply because every game isn't an insane micro fest in the early game and then it's over before anything happens. I hated z v z with a passion last year, one reason being because I'm a July fan and he is terrible at the matchup. This year the matchup has been more entertaining perhaps because of the uncertainty in the midgame
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release.
and then we have ZvP, this amazing match up in the beautifully balanced game of SC2 where the devs are making amazing maps with great features, such as 3 pylon blockable ramps, rocks on 3rds, and they are truly doing everything in their power to make SC2 as marketable and enjoyable as possible! (This is said in a semi-jokingly manner, with an edge put on everything)
Are the game designers the same people that make the maps? ...
On July 04 2012 04:49 Existor wrote: Roach to roach. It's so interesting. I have hope for Hots, where that Roach-festor combo will not be an ultimate combo in zvz
I face mass Roach like one out of every 50 games. People always do baneling all-in or some sort of muta play in the mid game. I never see people just play standard and go into roaches ^^
On July 04 2012 10:04 Sumahi wrote: For me I think z v z is in a much better place than last year simply because every game isn't an insane micro fest in the early game and then it's over before anything happens. I hated z v z with a passion last year, one reason being because I'm a July fan and he is terrible at the matchup. This year the matchup has been more entertaining perhaps because of the uncertainty in the midgame
The Queen buff certainly improved the match up by A LOT, in terms of less random baneling/ling wars and shit, but then we get a lot of other wacky shit Overall I agree that it is much muc better now than it was last year
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release.
and then we have ZvP, this amazing match up in the beautifully balanced game of SC2 where the devs are making amazing maps with great features, such as 3 pylon blockable ramps, rocks on 3rds, and they are truly doing everything in their power to make SC2 as marketable and enjoyable as possible! (This is said in a semi-jokingly manner, with an edge put on everything)
Are the game designers the same people that make the maps? ...
It was meant a a light hearted criticism of everything Blizzard, so see it as what it is and don't read much into it
ZvZ for the best players must be a nightmare. It's the only matchup where you can lose your entire army in less than a second, not even five minutes into a game. Unfortunately I don't see how HotS can change early-game ZvZ.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 10:09 Areon wrote: ZvZ for the best players must be a nightmare. It's the only matchup where you can lose your entire army in less than a second, not even five minutes into a game. Unfortunately I don't see how HotS can change early-game ZvZ.
Certain players find it extremely easy. It's all about how well you understand it and most people don't because some of the principles are counter-intuitive.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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:
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
6 pool is a BO loss to every other build
I've seen some dumb things, but this is pretty high up there.
Go hatch first against a 6 pool, I bet you can totally hold it.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
6 pool is a BO loss to every other build
I've seen some dumb things, but this is pretty high up there.
Go hatch first against a 6 pool, I bet you can totally hold it.
He's saying that a 6 pool loses against basically every other build except for a 15 hatch and a 14 pool.
On July 04 2012 04:46 Sc2Null wrote: ZvZ is a matchup mostly of mindgames. Its similar to PvP in the respect that the smallest decision can impact the game overall. The volatility of ZvZ comes from the speed of the units and zergs natural weak defense. My favorite matchup when mutas aren't involved imo.
edit: also, quoting Idra adds nothing to the discussion..get an interview from nestea or drg.
It's ironic that you say that quoting idra adds nothing to the discussion... directly after adding to the discussion with your thoroughly nebulous repetitive post.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
6 pool is a BO loss to every other build
I've seen some dumb things, but this is pretty high up there.
Go hatch first against a 6 pool, I bet you can totally hold it.
He's saying that a 6 pool loses against basically every other build except for a 15 hatch and a 14 pool.
15 drones vs 6 lings? lol ill take the drones any day
How the hell can a match-up be "Too dynamic"? Now, I'm not going to bash on IdrA personally, because he's awesome, but he tends to complain about things that are a specific issue for him, but then communicates it in a very general sense. I think this leads to misunderstandings about certain match-ups among his many fans sometimes.
I agree with what IdrA is saying about the game past 3 base.
It really comes down to feeling it out.. it becomes really hard to make a set way to describe who wins and who loses.
Nyduses, drops, counter attacks, expanding, and economic and army advantages all come into play, as well as upgrades, tech choices, and army positioning.
That is an interesting opinion for sure of Idra's. I personally agree that ZvZ is incredibly volatile, but I don't know that nobody understands it. I think that it is simply so dynamic that no one can truly map out the one or two best ways to play it. If he thinks that it isn't understood, then I wonder if it ever will be considering how close we are to HoTS and many people switching over to that.
time to diss idra because of this little article. im pretty sure idra doesn't even want to make this inteview, but EG made this just for marketing purposes.
On July 04 2012 04:45 Paljas wrote: nestea doesnt mind zvz. and life neither
dude, if you read the opening paragraph, idra talks about how ZvZ isn't imba, it's mind games, so obviously some players will enjoy it more than others. Nestea is on one end of the spectrum, Morrow is on another. whats your point?
On July 04 2012 11:11 ninazerg wrote: How the hell can a match-up be "Too dynamic"? Now, I'm not going to bash on IdrA personally, because he's awesome, but he tends to complain about things that are a specific issue for him, but then communicates it in a very general sense. I think this leads to misunderstandings about certain match-ups among his many fans sometimes.
he's the type of guy who would rather not teach noobs how to play this game, if he wants to be general and let his fans guess his motives, then who cares? fans don't dictate what another person does or says, it's up to them. Besides, the general statements are enough, it's quite possible he simply doesn't want to reveal anything he's been working on. However, I think he is right though, the match up is volatile at every moment in the game. PvP settled down with the immortal patch, and it's still volatile but there are really no early game rushes, which is always a possibility in a ZvZ. Then when the game drags on towards infestors, it starts to become really hard to tell how many hydras you want, whether you should risk going broodlords but get run over by mass roach or simply going muta, I definitely think Idra hit the nail on the head.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
6 pool is a BO loss to every other build
I've seen some dumb things, but this is pretty high up there.
Go hatch first against a 6 pool, I bet you can totally hold it.
He's saying that a 6 pool loses against basically every other build except for a 15 hatch and a 14 pool.
15 drones vs 6 lings? lol ill take the drones any day
You'll lose. That's the entire point of 6-pooling; it beats Hatch-first. The basic rule of ZvZ is the later your pool, the better, as long as you don't hatch-first. So a 10-pool beats a 6-pool, but loses to a 14-pool. The 14-pool loses to Hatch-first, which loses to a 6-pool.
Idra in January GSL went 0-2 against Nestea. In game one, he opened with a 10-pool, but NesTea's 13-pool was a better opening. In game two, Idra went 15-hatch 16-pool and lost to NesTea's 10-pool.
On July 04 2012 11:11 ninazerg wrote: How the hell can a match-up be "Too dynamic"? Now, I'm not going to bash on IdrA personally, because he's awesome, but he tends to complain about things that are a specific issue for him, but then communicates it in a very general sense. I think this leads to misunderstandings about certain match-ups among his many fans sometimes.
What he was saying is that the matchup is so dynamic that players don't understand it yet. He added that it's not something that needs to be patched and that eventually players will get a better grasp on it.
On July 04 2012 04:45 Paljas wrote: nestea doesnt mind zvz. and life neither
dude, if you read the opening paragraph, idra talks about how ZvZ isn't imba, it's mind games, so obviously some players will enjoy it more than others. Nestea is on one end of the spectrum, Morrow is on another. whats your point?
On July 04 2012 11:11 ninazerg wrote: How the hell can a match-up be "Too dynamic"? Now, I'm not going to bash on IdrA personally, because he's awesome, but he tends to complain about things that are a specific issue for him, but then communicates it in a very general sense. I think this leads to misunderstandings about certain match-ups among his many fans sometimes.
he's the type of guy who would rather not teach noobs how to play this game, if he wants to be general and let his fans guess his motives, then who cares? fans don't dictate what another person does or says, it's up to them. Besides, the general statements are enough, it's quite possible he simply doesn't want to reveal anything he's been working on. However, I think he is right though, the match up is volatile at every moment in the game. PvP settled down with the immortal patch, and it's still volatile but there are really no early game rushes, which is always a possibility in a ZvZ. Then when the game drags on towards infestors, it starts to become really hard to tell how many hydras you want, whether you should risk going broodlords but get run over by mass roach or simply going muta, I definitely think Idra hit the nail on the head.
There's also the options of drop, Nydus and Ultras in there, plus expansion timings. Even creep spread; how much do you want? when do you want it?
PvP IMO was never this volatile. It was a much worse matchup because of the 4-gate issues, but there's never been the range of choice you get in ZvZs.
ZvZ is my best, and favorite matchup, but then again I'm a lowbie and very macro focused so my edge on my opponents is usually macro, while my engagements, scouting, and micro are all worse.
So a mirror matchup is inherently shifted in my favor as long as I don't do a build that just dies to something early. Pool Hatch Gas seems great so far.
I like watching ZvZ too, just because I feel like there's always a lot more skirmishy action than there is in any other matchup. You can't wall off and zerglings are hella cheap so it's almost always worth it to run some into someone's nat or third or fourth.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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:
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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:
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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:
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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: 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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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:
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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:
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
I respectfully disagree. When a zerg 6 pools he/he/she does so under the assumption that they can not win in a straight up game. Since they know that their odds of winning in a straight up match or near to none, they decide to react by executing a "coin flip" build, which gives them a higher probability than near to none. I know it's confusing and it might take you a while to understand what I am trying to say, but once you do you will understand that a 6 pool has more to do with straight up probability than any of the things you listed.
On July 04 2012 09:33 Domus wrote: I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop... + Show Spoiler +
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player. At this point Idra is neither a game designer, nor an incredibly skilled player (as in code S GSL).
You're free to think whatever you like. I'd be the last to say that everyone should agree with me.
But let's just take a look at your extended metaphor for a moment.
Following its success in trials, the Colt pistol was formally adopted by the Army on March 29, 1911, thus gaining its designation, M1911 (Model 1911). It was adopted by the Navy and Marine Corps in 1913. Originally manufactured only by Colt, demand for the firearm in World War I saw the expansion of manufacture to the government-owned Springfield Armory.[10]
Battlefield experience in the First World War led to some more small external changes, completed in 1924. The new version received a modified type classification, M1911A1. Changes to the original design were minor and consisted of a shorter trigger, cutouts in the frame behind the trigger, an arched mainspring housing, a longer grip safety spur (to prevent hammer bite), a wider front sight, a shorter spur on the hammer, and simplified grip checkering by eliminating the "Double Diamond" reliefs.[8]
--
This is really true of any weapon design. Invariably, weapon design is not simply a function of the engineer, but involves feedback from the field.
Take, for example, the use of 9 mm rounds in Iraq around 2003-2004. Apparently the original military contract specified a particular finish that had problems the sandy environment of Iraq. After field reports of failures, a new contract was drawn up for a different 9 mm finish, which eliminated the problem.
The Mongol invasions of Japan in the 13th century spurred further evolution of the Japanese sword. Often forced to abandon traditional mounted archery for hand-to-hand combat, many samurai found that their swords were too delicate and prone to damage when used against the thick leather armor of the invaders. In response, Japanese swordsmiths started to adopt thinner and simpler temper lines. Certain Japanese swordsmiths of this period began to make blades with thicker backs and bigger points as a response to the Mongol threat
--
Etc. etc. etc.
That is to say - in the real world, field experience has not been discounted. I consider that even in hypothetical situations, it should not be discounted either. So I discount the validity of your metaphor.
As far as being a "skilled player" - by your own thinking, if you can't regularly beat Idra in a best of 5 series, then what validity does your opinion have next to his? If he doesn't have any right to talk about SC2 balance, then ten times more for you, isn't that right?
Of course, I think you are entitled to your own opinion - that's my whole point - regardless of your skill level.
My thought is that even if Idra is losing, even if Stephano can kick Idra's ass all day every day, that's no reason to discount an Idra analysis in favor of a Stephano analysis. Both are strong players, both would probably bring up valid and important points. Just because Idra's micro/macro don't match up to Stephano's micro/macro (imo) doesn't mean that Idra doesn't have anything to contribute to a discussion.
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.
I respectfully disagree. When a zerg 6 pools he/he/she does so under the assumption that they can not win in a straight up game. Since they know that their odds of winning in a straight up match or near to none, they decide to react by executing a "coin flip" build, which gives them a higher probability than near to none. I know it's confusing and it might take you a while to understand what I am trying to say, but once you do you will understand that a 6 pool has more to do with straight up probability than any of the things you listed.
I respectfully disagree. When a zerg 6 pools he/she does so under the assumption that they can not win in a straight up game. Since they know that they will probably lose in a macro game, they decide to react by executing a risky build that will punish a fast expand/late pool. I know it's confusing and it might take you a while to understand what I am trying to say, but once you do you will understand that a 6 pool has more to do with an opponent's mindset than randomness.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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:
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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
As 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
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
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
As 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)
On July 04 2012 16:24 Eviscerador wrote: 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)
By balancing he was more meaning to make it more fun and what not. Say PvP for example, toss nerfed the warp gates (the 2nd time not the first time in beta) to try and stop 4 gate pvp as that was literally all pvp was. They nerfed the pylon radius a little bit to but I can't remember if that was to try and fix hi ground 4 gating in PvP.
Just by rebalancing they mean to make it more fun and not just 1 strategy is all you can do.
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
As 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 wasn't responding to you either O.o I know that MorroW race picks Terran vs Zerg.
I love ZvZ, it's the only matchup that zerg players can show really good micro in, it is perfectly balanced, there is a lot of room for risk taking and there are a variety of styles. I don't really enjoy watching ZvZ but I like playing it.
I like watching the matchup and I like playing it, very entertaining and very tense. Sad to see mutas fade out but I'm happy about these ling infestor styles that have become very popular. Plus Zerg players are inherently awesome human beings .
Cool to hear Greg's thoughts, thanks for the article!
ZvZ is for me better than TvT. The only problem with it is that ZvZ was not played in the first year of GomTvT, and therefore not developed at all. But I have seen some insanely epic ZvZ where no mistakes were made and then can go on for forever, while giving much more action than a TvT.
Someone asks the guy for his thoughts on the zvz metagame, and he says his thoughts in an interview. You guys act like he's saying he's absolutely right about everything and that he's the best zvz in the world.
It's definitely a matchup that can completely change on a dime, far more so than any other imo. A single bling hit can mean the difference between a win or a loss.
I finally have a build I like in this matchup, but getting to use it... That's the trick. Need me a solid opener and some micro practice.
On July 04 2012 16:52 elis wrote: idra should go to bed, he isnt any more qualified to talk about matchups than avilo
You should go to bed, you're being an ignorant idiot. Idra is a really smart player, he has more game knowledge, and he is smarter about the game than most foreigners I think. Pretty much all of what he says in the article is pretty spot on if you care to read it. The fact that you compare Avilo to Idra in terms of match up understanding is fucking hilarious to me btw XD
On July 04 2012 16:52 elis wrote: idra should go to bed, he isnt any more qualified to talk about matchups than avilo
You should go to bed, you're being an ignorant idiot. Idra is a really smart player, he has more game knowledge, and he is smarter about the game than most foreigners I think. Pretty much all of what he says in the article is pretty spot on if you care to read it. The fact that you compare Avilo to Idra in terms of match up understanding is fucking hilarious to me btw XD
i think you are the ignorant idiot for not realizing how bad idra is at this game, his ego is way too large relative to his skill. i think its hilaious how he tells other people their opinion is trash and not worth listening to when he has a 33% winrate in 2012.
On July 04 2012 05:17 CrtBalorda wrote: I have my hopes up that ZvZ evolves into something more the what it was in brood war, and then it might actully be an interesting matchup.
I want it to be on the same level of fun and fairnes as PvP and TvT.
I'm not quite sure that I would say PvP is the definition of fun and fairness. I do think TvT has developed nicely though. I will say, as far as ZvZ is concerned, I agree with the OP that even though the matchup can feel incredibly frustrating at times, winning can feel extremely rewarding, because there are so many things that can (and often do) go wrong in a single match of ZvZ.
My guess is the real reason idra hates zvz is because u have to micro units something he can't do and zvz is the one match for zergs where holding a push doesn't just come down to holding by having more stuff with Econ behind it to get zergs powerful late game compostions. Control your banelings better, micro roaches back better, fungal better means u win zvz... idra is inferior to most top zergs in this area
On July 04 2012 16:52 elis wrote: idra should go to bed, he isnt any more qualified to talk about matchups than avilo
You should go to bed, you're being an ignorant idiot. Idra is a really smart player, he has more game knowledge, and he is smarter about the game than most foreigners I think. Pretty much all of what he says in the article is pretty spot on if you care to read it. The fact that you compare Avilo to Idra in terms of match up understanding is fucking hilarious to me btw XD
i think you are the ignorant idiot for not realizing how bad idra is at this game, his ego is way too large relative to his skill. i think its hilaious how he tells other people their opinion is trash and not worth listening to when he has a 33% winrate in 2012.
"XD"
Holy shit, you simply refuse to acknowledge that you are allowed to be smart about the game without having results, do you.
While I really don't like ZvZ, I like this sort of blog/article. Is anything similar planned for the T matchups? Would love to hear Demu's thoughts! Keep 'em coming, good job EG.
On July 05 2012 01:05 IamPryda wrote: My guess is the real reason idra hates zvz is because u have to micro units something he can't do and zvz is the one match for zergs where holding a push doesn't just come down to holding by having more stuff with Econ behind it to get zergs powerful late game compostions. Control your banelings better, micro roaches back better, fungal better means u win zvz... idra is inferior to most top zergs in this area
My guess is that he knows why he dislikes it more than you...
I beg to differ, Idra's specific unit micro is splendid, showcased by his ling/bane micro and his muta micro. I think it is more his general army management that is shit, as compared to his actual micro. Far too often you see infestors getting caught in he front, bad engages, bad concaves and infestors dying uselessly without landing proper fungals, but that is something entirely different than specific unit micro. I could reference some games he streamed vZ that showcase his ling/bane micro nicely, but I do concede that top NA zergs aren't exactly the best at ling/bling micro most of the time. (note that this does not mean I think he is much better than all foreigners etc etc, just that his micro isn't as bad as people say)
On July 05 2012 01:05 IamPryda wrote: My guess is the real reason idra hates zvz is because u have to micro units something he can't do and zvz is the one match for zergs where holding a push doesn't just come down to holding by having more stuff with Econ behind it to get zergs powerful late game compostions. Control your banelings better, micro roaches back better, fungal better means u win zvz... idra is inferior to most top zergs in this area
My guess is that he knows why he dislikes it more than you...
I beg to differ, Idra's specific unit micro is splendid, showcased by his ling/bane micro and his muta micro. I think it is more his general army management that is shit, as compared to his actual micro. Far too often you see infestors getting caught in he front, bad engages, bad concaves and infestors dying uselessly without landing proper fungals
i count that all under micro and i wouldnt say his muta control is anything to brag about i would say its average at best he does have nice ling flanking across the board but the rest of his micro is shit for someone that many zergs still hold up so high. idra has always had a great understanding of the game but i think that fact he leaves games early when behind doent help as he never tries to get back in by using great postion or a level of harrass that will force mistakes that u see other players do.
for all the dumbasses who are talking about how Idra is a bad player to qoute: He is/was a rank one GM in NA, he is a professional player, so even if his winrate would've been 10% in competitive games he's better than any american amateur AND he's getting payed to play this game,
EPT![[image loading]](http://evilgeniuses.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/gregzvz_medium.jpg)
he has a history of being a douche but in beta he could back it up, but now he just keeps losing credibility. it IS hilarious to see him rage though, so he's got that going for him. oh and that and calling koreans terrible, when they would roflstomp him in a bo10 showmatch
) is all knowing when it comes to SC2. Idra's thoughts, especially when it comes to balance are typically over the top and not always true. That does not mean that it shouldn't hold some merit. Last weeks SOTG with Qxc is a good example. Some of the things Idra proposed are completely true and are overlooked. Terrans started complaining about imbalance in the match up before they even tried to adjust their builds. However, on the other hand Idra is too stubborn to see that there might be some factors that point both sides can be right. Far too often its "I'm right. Your a fucking retard." I remain a fan nonetheless as I think he is a good person and does do a lot to keep the community talking and together.
