I'm sorry, i really did not like the 4-gate era. To me, the most optimal pvp is the current one, but only when there are no laser wars going on. What i enjoy mostly is something like 1 base blink vs robo into expand on cloud kingdom where the expanding player tries his best to defend both fronts and barely does so. After that attack, each player has to assess how much damage was dealt to/by him and decides how to move from there. Such a scenario was unthinkable during the 4-gate era. Now it's rare, but it happens: there are situations to look forward to..
Not to mention the variation of builds in the match-up, but that almost goes without saying.
I like PvP much more now. There seems to be more variety, although every once in a while a 4gate appears to smack someone in the face. It is interesting the way the 4gate is used nowadays to catch someone off guard in their build. It is almost as if Protoss players get traumatized by their repressed past that appears to haunt them!
short games are boring. prefer longer games with lots of small micro battles over one micro battle that decides game in first 10 mins.
show me a game of sc2 with a lot of small battles, sc2 is all about big endgame 200/200 battle -> end
Jjakji vs Leenock on taldarim altar a year ago
You can just point many TvT's aswell. Latest one Ryung vs MKP.
Ryung vs FlaSh @ U&D, MMA vs GuMiho @ GSTL Finals, the list goes on... some MMA TvZs against DRG / NesTea from mid-late 2011 come to mind as well.
But I think astor's point is that these kind of games are very rare and sadly that does seem to be the case. The root of the problem is obviously the design flaws that the game suffers from, but there's no need to reiterate those as they've been posted many many times and new threads on the same issues keep popping up every week it seems.
More on-topic, I didn't really hate that 4gate period as much as others did, but I feel right now there's more excitement in PvP. At least on average. Sure, there's coinflippy BO losses but sometimes you get crazy games like phoenix vs phoenix and so on... I think it's good enough as is honestly.
I liked it better when PvP was just 4-gates because the games were really, really short and I could go take a poop and a different match-up would be on. Now this helplessly boring matchup goes on much longer.
short games are boring. prefer longer games with lots of small micro battles over one micro battle that decides game in first 10 mins.
show me a game of sc2 with a lot of small battles, sc2 is all about big endgame 200/200 battle -> end 4 gate was cool tool to test players micro, now its all about BO maybe someone will develop "4 gate" for 2 bases?
I'm not going to "show you a game" with lots of small battles but they certainly exist in fact there are thousands of them, I hate it when people bash sc2 that way, its such a cliche thing to say at this point. While there are certainly lots of games where the entire game is no engagements and then one big battle decides the game, they aren't all like that and I would venture to say that not even the majority of games are like that. You are waaaaay oversimplifying the situation you are describing anyways even if it gets to 200/200 its usually who has the better follow up after the big battle and its not always the player who wins that battle that wins the game, especially when zerg are involved. "show me a game" .......go find games yourself don't insult the game then ask like some, insolent child, for proof that you aren't wrong. Ever watch TvT, or ZvT or TvP, none of those MU's are focused on max and wax more on strategy harass and positioning in skirmishes.
On November 25 2012 23:56 ChriseC wrote: pvp is still the worst matchup by far i rather watched fast 4gates than those 20min of waiting into colossus wars
For me it isn't, since colossi warz don't happen every game, while zvz has turned from funny and dynamic ling/bling into mass imbastor/roach.
short games are boring. prefer longer games with lots of small micro battles over one micro battle that decides game in first 10 mins.
show me a game of sc2 with a lot of small battles, sc2 is all about big endgame 200/200 battle -> end 4 gate was cool tool to test players micro, now its all about BO maybe someone will develop "4 gate" for 2 bases?
I'm not going to "show you a game" with lots of small battles but they certainly exist in fact there are thousands of them, I hate it when people bash sc2 that way, its such a cliche thing to say at this point. While there are certainly lots of games where the entire game is no engagements and then one big battle decides the game, they aren't all like that and I would venture to say that not even the majority of games are like that. You are waaaaay oversimplifying the situation you are describing anyways even if it gets to 200/200 its usually who has the better follow up after the big battle and its not always the player who wins that battle that wins the game, especially when zerg are involved. "show me a game" .......go find games yourself don't insult the game then ask like some, insolent child, for proof that you aren't wrong. Ever watch TvT, or ZvT or TvP, none of those MU's are focused on max and wax more on strategy harass and positioning in skirmishes.
How is TvZ/TvP not focused on maxed engagements? TvP late game comes down to if the terran manages to kill enough of the protoss army that he can deal with the next round of warpin and if he can't he dies instantly
TvZ late game comes down to if the terran manages to kill the zerg before hive is out, and if he fails it's all about one engagement
It's a known fact that the majority of games come down to a 200/200 fight and whoever comes out on top of that immediately wins, the only matchup that doesn't suffer from that is TvT
short games are boring. prefer longer games with lots of small micro battles over one micro battle that decides game in first 10 mins.
show me a game of sc2 with a lot of small battles, sc2 is all about big endgame 200/200 battle -> end 4 gate was cool tool to test players micro, now its all about BO maybe someone will develop "4 gate" for 2 bases?
I'm not going to "show you a game" with lots of small battles but they certainly exist in fact there are thousands of them, I hate it when people bash sc2 that way, its such a cliche thing to say at this point. While there are certainly lots of games where the entire game is no engagements and then one big battle decides the game, they aren't all like that and I would venture to say that not even the majority of games are like that. You are waaaaay oversimplifying the situation you are describing anyways even if it gets to 200/200 its usually who has the better follow up after the big battle and its not always the player who wins that battle that wins the game, especially when zerg are involved. "show me a game" .......go find games yourself don't insult the game then ask like some, insolent child, for proof that you aren't wrong. Ever watch TvT, or ZvT or TvP, none of those MU's are focused on max and wax more on strategy harass and positioning in skirmishes.
how about pvp/pvz???? and even thou those are 3/9 of the mu's (tvz,tvp,tvt) those are SO RARE, since the terran pool is so small in tournements.
i personaly stopped playing sc2 becouse there was no real room to multi task or gain more skirmishes with p, the zerg meta game is alot focused on camping. and terran HAS to break them otherwise the most likely lose in the lategame.
this is from a interview from BW head coaches on sc2
"2) some coaches agree that SC2 seemed boring in comparison to BW.So when they have to force the players to play this game later on, they feel like players wouldn't be doing it for fun anymore = it actually will be forcing it."
on-topic, i would like to see that sg vs sg would become standert. so fun to watch. so personaly i woudn't like seeing 4gates anymore
Yes, but that's not an endorsement of PvP in general. It's bad and always has been, but at least when it was 4gate wars the games were over fast. Now we have to watch 20-25 minute laser light shows.
The problem with the current state of PvP is that once you get past the build order wins and are roughly even you are basically left with a dumbed down version of TvT positional wars with collosus. The 4 gate era of PvP was not exactly good for quality games but in the post 4 gate era you still dont get quality games in PvP they just last longer which is even worse.
On November 26 2012 00:29 Adreme wrote: The problem with the current state of PvP is that once you get past the build order wins and are roughly even you are basically left with a dumbed down version of TvT positional wars with collosus. The 4 gate era of PvP was not exactly good for quality games but in the post 4 gate era you still dont get quality games in PvP they just last longer which is even worse.
Right now, also a better player always wins. Having an ability to choose a right build for right map against particular opponent, is a big part of skill.
People who call current PvP Colossi wars have no understanding of how compositions work in the lategame. If you think you can just mass up Colossi and expect to win in a maxed situation, you're kidding yourself. The ratio of Zealots, Archons, and Immortals is incredibly important and almost always determines the winner. I'll take 11 Colossi, 3 Immortals, a few Archons and the rest in Zealots over 14 Colossi and a bunch of Stalker any day.
On November 26 2012 00:39 Shiori wrote: People who call current PvP Colossi wars have no understanding of how compositions work in the lategame. If you think you can just mass up Colossi and expect to win in a maxed situation, you're kidding yourself. The ratio of Zealots, Archons, and Immortals is incredibly important and almost always determines the winner. I'll take 11 Colossi, 3 Immortals, a few Archons and the rest in Zealots over 14 Colossi and a bunch of Stalker any day.
If one makes nothing but tanks or nothing but thors in a TvT they arent going to beat a balanced comp either. You can dress it up however you like mid to late game PvP plays a lot like a dumbed down TvT and I have watched a ton of PvPs trying to see if an alternative style of playing the mid to late game was viable or doable to no real avail. I say no real avail because while I have found some neat tricks to use in mid game on certain maps or one time tricks one can use on certain players I havnt realy found anything viable that would change the matchup.
EPT
