(2), (3) What exactly does he think protoss is going to do? No one knows, even Startale Protoss are struggling against Zerg. The carrier play doesn't work very well if it got scouted (which is very likely to be scouted). So it left Protoss no choice but to do all those mid-game timing pushes and all-ins. It's the famous phrase: "kill it before broodlord".
The problem is not that Protoss can't win against Zerg on a 50-50 basis. It's just there is only one strategy: "kill it before broodlord". How stupid is that. And Dustin Browder is talking about muta in the interview. Does he even know what's a 2-base dilemma in PvZ? Even that NASL interviewer is much more knowledgeable than DB.
I agree on the PvZ situation. The funny (or not so funnny) thing even if zerg doesn't scout the mass carriers they seem to win. The best example was red squritle in TSL4 on Metropolis. I thought Ret was dead because he was unware of the only air force. But then he killed the carriers without problems despite having mostly brutlords. :D That's so shocking. Same thing a while back also on Metropolis at HSC5 Nerchio against yonghwa. Nerchio didn't scout the toss going air but roflstomped him later anway.
(2), (3) What exactly does he think protoss is going to do? No one knows, even Startale Protoss are struggling against Zerg. The carrier play doesn't work very well if it got scouted (which is very likely to be scouted). So it left Protoss no choice but to do all those mid-game timing pushes and all-ins. It's the famous phrase: "kill it before broodlord".
The problem is not that Protoss can't win against Zerg on a 50-50 basis. It's just there is only one strategy: "kill it before broodlord". How stupid is that. And Dustin Browder is talking about muta in the interview. Does he even know what's a 2-base dilemma in PvZ? Even that NASL interviewer is much more knowledgeable than DB.
I agree on the PvZ situation. The funny (or not so funnny) thing even if zerg doesn't scout the mass carriers they seem to win. The best example was red squritle in TSL4 on Metropolis. I thought Ret was dead because he was unware of the only air force. But then he killed the carriers without problems despite having mostly brutlords. :D That's so shocking. Same thing a while back also on Metropolis at HSC5 Nerchio against yonghwa. Nerchio didn't scout the toss going air but roflstomped him later anway.
You mean when ret had I belive 30~ corruptors and something like 20 infestors, then he lost his army but rebuilt it because he had such a better economy than squirtle for most of the game?
(2), (3) What exactly does he think protoss is going to do? No one knows, even Startale Protoss are struggling against Zerg. The carrier play doesn't work very well if it got scouted (which is very likely to be scouted). So it left Protoss no choice but to do all those mid-game timing pushes and all-ins. It's the famous phrase: "kill it before broodlord".
The problem is not that Protoss can't win against Zerg on a 50-50 basis. It's just there is only one strategy: "kill it before broodlord". How stupid is that. And Dustin Browder is talking about muta in the interview. Does he even know what's a 2-base dilemma in PvZ? Even that NASL interviewer is much more knowledgeable than DB.
I agree on the PvZ situation. The funny (or not so funnny) thing even if zerg doesn't scout the mass carriers they seem to win. The best example was red squritle in TSL4 on Metropolis. I thought Ret was dead because he was unware of the only air force. But then he killed the carriers without problems despite having mostly brutlords. :D That's so shocking. Same thing a while back also on Metropolis at HSC5 Nerchio against yonghwa. Nerchio didn't scout the toss going air but roflstomped him later anway.
You mean when ret had I belive 30~ corruptors and something like 20 infestors, then he lost his army but rebuilt it because he had such a better economy than squirtle for most of the game?
Don't make it sound like he has other alternatives other than kill it before broodlord
On July 30 2012 05:39 Satiinifi wrote: I guess DB is watching different tournaments than I have been watching, as far as I've seen tvz is still disgusting
I dunno, TvZ is pretty good these days. The good terrans are finding ways to handle it, and the bad ones aren't. At first I do think it was a little ridiculous but now I think it's in a good place.
On July 30 2012 05:39 Satiinifi wrote: I guess DB is watching different tournaments than I have been watching, as far as I've seen tvz is still disgusting
I dunno, TvZ is pretty good these days. The good terrans are finding ways to handle it, and the bad ones aren't. At first I do think it was a little ridiculous but now I think it's in a good place.
It only gets better for like one or two weeks. And all we saw are some top top Terrans. I won't be too optimistic for other Terran players outside GSL.
On July 30 2012 05:39 Satiinifi wrote: I guess DB is watching different tournaments than I have been watching, as far as I've seen tvz is still disgusting
I dunno, TvZ is pretty good these days. The good terrans are finding ways to handle it, and the bad ones aren't. At first I do think it was a little ridiculous but now I think it's in a good place.
Yea, the good Terran and keep up with the good Zergs, but the fact that a bad Terran stands next to no chance vs a good Zerg, whereas a bad Zerg can still quite easily upset a good Terran... That's quite frustrating. Similarly, bad Zergs roflstomp bad Terrans, and that's where all the QQ comes from, I think. In any case, once beta pops out it won't matter much because we'll get a fresh start with the HotS metagame Optimism!
On July 29 2012 22:35 Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo wrote: Dustin Browder answers pretty much all questions.
I never said he didn't. read my post again. I said he didn't had real new shocking details in his answers that nobody knew before.
Nothing of substance implies there's nothing you can take away from this at all.
That's exactly what i am saying. There was nothing he said that i didn't know or expected already. As a result i didn't take away a lot in watching it.
On July 29 2012 22:37 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: But if you are talking about "no real specific content", like the kind given in that example, i'm not sure what other questions there were where he didn't give specific enough information for it to be informative.
This is my whole point. I felt that way at all other questions aswell. Feel free to pick one.
It's a little confusing because it seems you are exaggerating that there is 0% substance, because you say you "didn't take away a lot in watching it", meaning that you did take away some, even if it was very little, but you also say "that's exactly what i am saying" in response to "there's nothing you can take away from this at all".
If you are exaggerating, then I don't think I need to provide any examples. I see what you are saying, that nothing was really shocking, but then again, the questions themselves weren't very shocking or unique neither. They may be interesting, but they are questions regarding things that have been discussed/mentioned before in any kind of form.
If you're not exaggerating, then there's a lot you can take away, even things such as how they still don't know when Beta will come out, WC4 is still not in development and they are not even sure if they want to work on that next, they want to improve many things including stats/ranking/etc. but they have a long list of things to work on (implying they could use a bigger team and/or these areas are actually much more difficult to work on than the community believes it to be), queen change is working as intended and the reason for the queen buff is indeed that they felt zerg didn't have enough options to stop terran from opening and containing zergs with hellions all the time, etc.
You have a lot of good points here and i understand that my first post conceived so negatively. I think i watched every single interview with DB that is out there, and a lot of the "interesting facts" that you are listing were already answered there. They were not knew to me. =/
I said "didn't take away a lot in watching it" instead of anything, because you souldn't use those absulute statements. Never say never because there is always one exclusion (that is absurd and that you don't realize when you say it.)
Either way, even if the information is not shocking, the questions weren't exploring new topics not already discussed decently before, and even if there was not a lot of new info, many concerns were clarified and some insight was provided regarding the way blizzard does things to address the community's concerns.
This is very well said and i should have said it in that positive way in the first place.
I forgot there were other interviews of him I haven't seen yet, and others may not have seen those neither, so I seemed to have enjoyed this more than you as a result.
I agree with you, about using absolutes. I learned in school that absolutes are used to exaggerate things because you should be able to recognize the exaggeration, but I disagree with that, because if we're not using accurate language, then our communication is not being efficient. Words have definitions, and we communicate through those definitions. For example here, it's unclear originally whether you were exaggerating you didn't take away anything new, or if you just didn't take away much. But if someone really took away nothing, then how would he express it? I stay away from exaggerating with absolutes because of this.
On July 30 2012 02:58 CikaZombi wrote: The muta problem he addresses here is specifically after the initial harassment comes and the Protoss stabilizes, gets his third base and the zerg is maxed on muta/ling for some time.
Now, the problem with going apeshit 3 freaking stargates and pump only pheonix is the switch to roaches that could just murder you,
This is not very accurate. You can't go reactionary double Stargate because you straight up die against mutas. Your first 2 phoenix wont do shit if you face 10 mutas and it will get even worse. You won't be able to build enough phoenix to match the muta numbers. (I have seen that work in some few cases (when you mix it with stalkers at the beginning) but i don't think its a good/strong way of dealing with it) Roach switches have nothing to do with it.
but if you already have a Sgate, put down another one chrono 10 pheonix, chrono the upgrade and fucking kite and murder his 2000/2000 in mutas.
this sounds easy how you write it. It takes quite some time after you can afford the fleet beacon after investing in 2 Stargates. The upgrade only comes into play if the zerg refuses to tech switch in late game. And they really should imho. I think a switch into brutlords that benefit from the ground melee upgrades (from zerglings) and the upgrades from air is the strongest answer.
The accent here is on ALREADY having a stargate. So perhaps a few residual pheonix as well remained after the initial harassment that couldn't face the mutas in those low numbers. So yeah, if zerg refuses to tech switch or does so slowly, you can build a couple more phenonixes, get the beacon (which you will need for later anyway) and lower the muta number by a significant amount. Then harass with them while teching up to whatever you need to after. (this was just an example I made up in 2 minutes to reply to the quoted ignorance, so it isn't supposed to be very accurate but a on the fly example fitting to justify DB's logic in a couple of his statements)
(2), (3) What exactly does he think protoss is going to do? No one knows, even Startale Protoss are struggling against Zerg. The carrier play doesn't work very well if it got scouted (which is very likely to be scouted). So it left Protoss no choice but to do all those mid-game timing pushes and all-ins. It's the famous phrase: "kill it before broodlord".
The problem is not that Protoss can't win against Zerg on a 50-50 basis. It's just there is only one strategy: "kill it before broodlord". How stupid is that. And Dustin Browder is talking about muta in the interview. Does he even know what's a 2-base dilemma in PvZ? Even that NASL interviewer is much more knowledgeable than DB.
I agree on the PvZ situation. The funny (or not so funnny) thing even if zerg doesn't scout the mass carriers they seem to win. The best example was red squritle in TSL4 on Metropolis. I thought Ret was dead because he was unware of the only air force. But then he killed the carriers without problems despite having mostly brutlords. :D That's so shocking. Same thing a while back also on Metropolis at HSC5 Nerchio against yonghwa. Nerchio didn't scout the toss going air but roflstomped him later anway.
You mean when ret had I belive 30~ corruptors and something like 20 infestors, then he lost his army but rebuilt it because he had such a better economy than squirtle for most of the game?
Seems like you watched a different game or through the glasses of a Zerg: Look at 21:30: Red has way over 20 brutlords, ~20 corruptors and ~10 infestors:
the toss has a carrier only army with a ms and a few ht's to storm. so red basically fights with only half of his army (supply and valuewise).
Red loses less in the fight despite what you were saying. rewatch it at 21:30 ++ And if you watch at the resources before the fight red has also less banked.
(If i were mean i could say there was actually no single accurate point in your post.)
(2), (3) What exactly does he think protoss is going to do? No one knows, even Startale Protoss are struggling against Zerg. The carrier play doesn't work very well if it got scouted (which is very likely to be scouted). So it left Protoss no choice but to do all those mid-game timing pushes and all-ins. It's the famous phrase: "kill it before broodlord".
The problem is not that Protoss can't win against Zerg on a 50-50 basis. It's just there is only one strategy: "kill it before broodlord". How stupid is that. And Dustin Browder is talking about muta in the interview. Does he even know what's a 2-base dilemma in PvZ? Even that NASL interviewer is much more knowledgeable than DB.
I agree on the PvZ situation. The funny (or not so funnny) thing even if zerg doesn't scout the mass carriers they seem to win. The best example was red squritle in TSL4 on Metropolis. I thought Ret was dead because he was unware of the only air force. But then he killed the carriers without problems despite having mostly brutlords. :D That's so shocking. Same thing a while back also on Metropolis at HSC5 Nerchio against yonghwa. Nerchio didn't scout the toss going air but roflstomped him later anway.
You mean when ret had I belive 30~ corruptors and something like 20 infestors, then he lost his army but rebuilt it because he had such a better economy than squirtle for most of the game?
the toss has a carrier only army with a ms and a few ht's to storm. so red basically fights with only half of his army (supply and valuewise).
Red loses less in the fight despite what you were saying. rewatch it at 21:30 ++ And if you watch at the resources before the fight red has also less banked.
(If i were mean i could say there was actually no single accurate point in your post.)
Are you joking or what?
Do you really look at that engagement and think it's unfair that Zerg comes out FAR ahead?
In that fight there were only 12 Carriers, a couple HTs and the mothership. 1 Carrier was on the way to his army, but not there yet. And he had 5 more in production.
Squirtle vortexes 2 carriers as well as what seems like 75% the Interceptors. A bit later a single corrupter also moves into the vortex. So then at that part it's roughly 18 Corrputers and some Infested Terrans fighting a mothership, a couple HTs and 10 Carriers with barely any Interceptors left.
The mothership takes a lot fire from Infested Terrans and then also dies to the Corrupters, Squirtle's Storms aren't placed all too well, some deal at least decent damage though. And yeh of course at that part most of the carriers get taken out, although 4 can actually escape and take out the last remaining Corrupters of that battle.
If you consider this anything but a godawful engagement by Squirtle than stop arguing. Because it was just that. His Vortex basically made his Carriers close to useless.
(2), (3) What exactly does he think protoss is going to do? No one knows, even Startale Protoss are struggling against Zerg. The carrier play doesn't work very well if it got scouted (which is very likely to be scouted). So it left Protoss no choice but to do all those mid-game timing pushes and all-ins. It's the famous phrase: "kill it before broodlord".
The problem is not that Protoss can't win against Zerg on a 50-50 basis. It's just there is only one strategy: "kill it before broodlord". How stupid is that. And Dustin Browder is talking about muta in the interview. Does he even know what's a 2-base dilemma in PvZ? Even that NASL interviewer is much more knowledgeable than DB.
I agree on the PvZ situation. The funny (or not so funnny) thing even if zerg doesn't scout the mass carriers they seem to win. The best example was red squritle in TSL4 on Metropolis. I thought Ret was dead because he was unware of the only air force. But then he killed the carriers without problems despite having mostly brutlords. :D That's so shocking. Same thing a while back also on Metropolis at HSC5 Nerchio against yonghwa. Nerchio didn't scout the toss going air but roflstomped him later anway.
You mean when ret had I belive 30~ corruptors and something like 20 infestors, then he lost his army but rebuilt it because he had such a better economy than squirtle for most of the game?
the toss has a carrier only army with a ms and a few ht's to storm. so red basically fights with only half of his army (supply and valuewise).
Red loses less in the fight despite what you were saying. rewatch it at 21:30 ++ And if you watch at the resources before the fight red has also less banked.
(If i were mean i could say there was actually no single accurate point in your post.)
Are you joking or what?
Do you really look at that engagement and think it's unfair that Zerg comes out FAR ahead?
In that fight there were only 12 Carriers, a couple HTs and the mothership. 1 Carrier was on the way to his army, but not there yet. And he had 5 more in production.
Squirtle vortexes 2 carriers as well as what seems like 75% the Interceptors. A bit later a single corrupter also moves into the vortex. So then at that part it's roughly 18 Corrputers and some Infested Terrans fighting a mothership, a couple HTs and 10 Carriers with barely any Interceptors left.
The mothership takes a lot fire from Infested Terrans and then also dies to the Corruptors, Squirtle's Storms aren't placed all too well, some deal at least decent damage though. And yeh of course at that part most of the carriers get taken out, although 4 can actually escape and take out the last remaining Corrupters of that battle.
If you consider this anything but a godawful engagement by Squirtle than stop arguing. Because it was just that. His Vortex basically made his Carriers close to useless.
You are twisting my words and it seems you don't get the point the ppl above me and i made. Pls quote if you think i said smth different.
I said it was shocking that ret won that. i didn't say it was unfair. I think with a better engadgement and a better army composition (i would have build some archons for the vortex) the toss could have won that fight. But ONLY because ret had a really bad army composition for what he was facing. Imagine he had only 5 broodlords and 30 more Corruptors instead? Then it's not a matter of how well the toss plays, there is no way you can win that fight if the zerg doesn't make a big blunder.
man squirtle blew that engagement hard. Those vortexes made those carriers obsolete. Also didnt he have like 6 carriers or something being built at the time?
(2), (3) What exactly does he think protoss is going to do? No one knows, even Startale Protoss are struggling against Zerg. The carrier play doesn't work very well if it got scouted (which is very likely to be scouted). So it left Protoss no choice but to do all those mid-game timing pushes and all-ins. It's the famous phrase: "kill it before broodlord".
The problem is not that Protoss can't win against Zerg on a 50-50 basis. It's just there is only one strategy: "kill it before broodlord". How stupid is that. And Dustin Browder is talking about muta in the interview. Does he even know what's a 2-base dilemma in PvZ? Even that NASL interviewer is much more knowledgeable than DB.
I agree on the PvZ situation. The funny (or not so funnny) thing even if zerg doesn't scout the mass carriers they seem to win. The best example was red squritle in TSL4 on Metropolis. I thought Ret was dead because he was unware of the only air force. But then he killed the carriers without problems despite having mostly brutlords. :D That's so shocking. Same thing a while back also on Metropolis at HSC5 Nerchio against yonghwa. Nerchio didn't scout the toss going air but roflstomped him later anway.
You mean when yonghwa for some reason decided to mass void rays and made only 1 carrier? That's a pretty poor example to support your point.
EPT
Optimism!
