EDIT: Combatex nearly just defeated Parting 2-1 at WCG finals.... Adds to the discussion i think.
I know this post will probably draw a lot of flack but i hope you guys hear me out.
Once upon a time, PvP was a straight forward affair, a matchup where superior micro wins almost 100% of the time. One could say it was a test of APM and precision, with little else playing a role. It was boring to watch for many, and from a game design standpoint a mess.
However, from a competitive standpoint the 4 gate ensured one thing - the better player won almost 100% of the time. My proof for that is simple, top players like ogs.MC rocked 90%+ win rates (A lot of people challenging this number, i saw it on a GSL vod when he was being introduced by Korean announcers, if it wasn't 90%, I'm still pretty sure i remember the number being astronomically high), with no one able to touch him in a vast majority of games.
Fast forward through warp gate time nerfs, sentry build time buffs, a bevy of warping/vision ramp changes, the four gate is all but dead, but now more than ever we have a gamesmanship of rocks paper scissor, and more than ever i can't for the life of me find a single PvP expert.
Remember when OZ was 70%+ in GSTL in PvP? That dominance must've lasted less than a month, as he then proceeded to get rolled out by protoss players in multiple tournaments.
Who can dominate the matchup? is it even possible? I'm not sure the current meta game is better, i see top players get upset all the time by guys that they should beat in this matchup, something that happens much less in the non-mirrors involving protoss.
Why is the matchup so volatile, why do so many strategies hard counter one another? Will the inclusion of the new units solve these problems in HOTS?
combination of gimmicky tech trees and not beeing able to scout properly. it just becomes more visible in the mirror matchup.
While i agree that during the 4gate era the one with better micro won, though is this what we only want? I am for sure, that the current metagame leads to way more interesting games!
I don't believe that PvP was better with 4 Gate. One thing that you say is that it was all about micro, apm, and precision, which is true. A 4 Gate vs 4 Gate battle was all about who controlled better. However, was this really a good thing? Another aspect of SC2, and another way you can win, should always be out-strategizing your opponent. Superior strategies is right up there with superior micro in reasons why a player should win. In general, Korean protosses (you mention MC and Oz) have foreigner crushing mechanics and precision. However, a foreigner can win in today's PvP against someone like that by practicing and formulating a better strategy. 4 Gate was a generic build that did not showcase player strategy or ingenuity. It required no scouting, planning, or on the fly decision making. Worst of all, it was god-awful for spectators who were forced to watch the same scenario play out over and over again in PvP. I appreciate the points that you make in the OP, but I feel you leave out the benefits that come from the inclusion of different strategies in a matchup.
MC was never at 90% in PvP and PvP is far less volatile now than it was back then. I can only assume you made this topic because MC lost to Grubby which is a super dumb reason to think something like this. MC just hasn't performed well lately. He's had trouble in all 3 matchups.
I think PvP right now is actually one of the more skill based matchups. Sure 4gate vs 4gate lead to the better micro player winning a lot, but that doesn't mean he's the overall better player. I think games need to have a chance to enter the midgame to determine who is the victor.
In HotS PvP is a lot more interesting. There is a lot more Gateway usage and harassment due to the "death" of the Colossus in the matchup. Tempests are easily accessible and have pretty much made mass Colossi suicide. I think we'll see a lot more Gateway based armies supported by Immortals, Archons, and Tempests than the boring "war of the worlds" that we see in WoL PvP today.
"the better player won almost 100% of the time." Well, that's true a lot of the time, but what's more true is that the player who plays better in a given game will win. In PvP the player who defensive 4 gated won almost 100% of the time against the aggressive 4 gater, and the teching player won a lot of the time against the defensive 4 gater.
"why do so many strategies hard counter one another?" That's the way it is in most matchups in the early game though, especially when considering 1, or early 2 base plays. Whether it's ZvZ, TvT, PvT, or TvZ, you can just draw circles of builds that hard counter one another. When you commit to a tech early on there isn't any going back, so if your opponent picks a tech that beats yours then you can very easily be in a tough spot.
EDIT: PvP sort of reminds me of BW ZvZ, where 90% of games didn't go very long because builds countered eachother, but the longer the game went the more likely it was that the better player won.
4gate PvP was really fun to play and watch now that I look back on it. It was pure micro and decision-making; the player with the better of those two traits always won. Even though today's era of PvP has become more "standard" with Creator, Rain, and PartinG showing how late-game should be played, it's a lot less entertaining to watch, at least imo. Creator vs PartinG in WCS on Antiga was a pretty good example of why I don't like playing/watching late-game PvP. Creator attacks up the ramp at a bad angle, even though he had his attack upgrade advantage and superior army count/composition, and instantly loses half his army. The worst thing is playing it, when you don't know when you should attack.
On November 25 2012 08:20 mTwRINE wrote: With 4 Gate you have defense>offense>tech>defense rock paper scissor. Without 4 Gate you only have techroute rock paper scissor.
So its way better the way it is now.
Nice thought process OP but as Rine said, it wasn´t "the better micro wins" it was more like the defensive 4 gate player wins. And if it was defensive vs defensive 4 gate and someone got blink and the other one comitted on his 4 gate it was also bullshit. I could continue here but i think everyone that read till here got the point.
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?
On November 25 2012 08:27 Arco wrote: In HotS PvP is a lot more interesting. There is a lot more Gateway usage and harassment due to the "death" of the Colossus in the matchup. Tempests are easily accessible and have pretty much made mass Colossi suicide. I think we'll see a lot more Gateway based armies supported by Immortals, Archons, and Tempests than the boring "war of the worlds" that we see in WoL PvP today.
Besides Colossi wars i think that PvP nowadays is getting more and more entertaining. I love the phoenix wars which somehow start to appear in professional games lately.
I prefer 4gate vs 4gate over war of the worlds but thanks to 4gate nerf we're able to watch pvp midgame which can be really intresting. For me colossi wars are a lesser evil. They suck, but at least we can have some fun before they occur.
In an RTS game, strategy should play a part in determining the outcome of a match and you can't seriously say there was much fore·thought in the days of 4 gate PvP.
Even if it made better player win more, as a spectator I want as entertaining games as possible (witch should mean tournament organizers want that too), and pretty much same game over and over again is not that.
On November 25 2012 08:26 JJH777 wrote: MC was never at 90% in PvP and PvP is far less volatile now than it was back then. I can only assume you made this topic because MC lost to Grubby which is a super dumb reason to think something like this. MC just hasn't performed well lately. He's had trouble in all 3 matchups.
To be fair through Season 4 of GSL (I guess that was the first Code S season) MC had won all of his PvPs. Of course all meant he beat San in the one PvP he had played. He got crushed by Alicia 2-0 in the Supertournament shortly there after though.
I think so. The better player won. I mean, it was shitty, but rather having PvP being a micro tournament than Rock/Paper/Scizzor (between 2 equal opponents).
On November 25 2012 08:36 HolydaKing wrote: Absolutely no...
Besides Colossi wars i think that PvP nowadays is getting more and more entertaining. I love the phoenix wars which somehow start to appear in professional games lately.
I always found the Colossi wars hilarious, it is like watching a lot of gas go poof and having 6 or so spindly colossi waiting for chargelots to come back and wear as shoes. I don't think that 4 gate era was as good as PvP now though.
The diversity of options is a lot more fun to watch than knowing 4 gates are going to happen every single PvP, I can't wait for Phoenix builds to get a lot more sorted in terms of counters.
your take on "oGsMC was good in the 4gate era" is false.
MC was only good at that time because there were few koreans at foreign tournaments. I do think Rain, parting, creator, squirtle etc. are all better than MC at PvP today.
look at foreigners such as babyknight, grubby, i do believe they are improving rather than winning due to more forgiving game designs
Hmm interesting question actually. I'm not sure if it was my newbie bias back in the day , compared to knowing more about sc2 now , but looking back at pvp back then - it did indeed seem a lot more exciting and fun to watch. Just thinking about all of Huks pvp's that had me on the edge ^ _ ^
Or maybe its just that i really dislike the huge coinflip bo win-loss situations, that happen so hard nowadays. Which seem written in stone unless one makes a freaking huge mistake. (eg. : Phoenix > Robo, Robo>DT)
I think I'll go check out some old GSL vods to see if they really were more fun.
PS : interesting point i think is also map design, if Blizzard or Mapmakers would not have seen a Problem in 4gate wars, i wonder what the maps would look like nowadays where Ramps wouldnt be important.
No, because watching best of x's were extremely boring and predictable. Did we all forget the awful GSL Finals that was MC v Seed? What about Huk vs MC at MLG Orlando? Those were nearly universally hated series, and for good reason.The PvP's from the BWC and the IEM Singapore were so much better it's unbelievable. This thread is amazing proof that nostalgia is an ridiculously powerful force.
Well you see mass phoenix, even though it looks damn cool. And you see combinations like Zealot Immortal Archon Colossus. There is alot to micro (even more then 4 gate) and even more that is forgotten. For example the Warp gate mechanic. Killing your opponent 20 workers is no success if you can't delay the army of your opponent that just grew 20 supply of warpins. So no 4gate was just a long hold where people were happy with not having to think of solutions, because no one else did. Right now we are in the same position. But at some point there will be another breakthrough. Phoenix play is a good example. At the end its funny that Protoss has no unit that could deal well with the Voidray, but you don't see it being build.
I liked the 4 gate days better than I like the colossus battles we get these days. But I also use to be a huge fan of BW zvz even though it was nothing but ling muta. Its not hard for me to make an argument that neither is what the game really should be even though its what I prefer to watch.
short games are boring. prefer longer games with lots of small micro battles over one micro battle that decides game in first 10 mins.
Maybe, but i loved jd's zvz in 09-10. he singlehandedly broke the bo coin toss with his insane execution beating 9pools with 12hatchs. Having a mu in sc2 with that much intensity and no room for error is always fun (imo)
I really don't think so. Sure, theres something positive about quick and intense games with a lot of micro, but it was the same thing over and over again. Yes it might be skillbased in a way, but also very one-dimensional, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a skill-based game.
Todays PvP I feel is a lot closed to how it should be. It just suffers from some similar problems that other matchups have as well, it can be very BO dependant, the motivation to attack more than one time per game is very low, not many different lategame army combos possible. But I don't think thats necessarily the problem of the PVP matchup only.
Short answer no, long answer is that it was incredibly coin flip orientated with the fact that if 1 unit was out of place you'd lose the game and get incredibly frustrated that it was the optimal build and anything else was considered bad therefore you were bad and called noob etc.
when you ask "is 4 gate better" you ask 1 question thats really two questions
which one is more skilled which one is more fun to watch
the 4 gate era was imo the more skilled matchup because it was less rock paper scissors and i won 95 percent of my pvps as a high masters protoss.
the non 4 gate era (?) is more fun to watch because you see dif builds but i often get blind countered
if you think that the current meta game takes more skill then 4 gate consider this. every mirror matchup has the potential to be making the same units, so be it blink stalkers vs immortals or immortal/collosi vs immortal collosi you are going to be seeing most of the same units vs the same units the only dif being which of the 3 builds they opened with and which special unit gives the other side the adv in what way. why would ANY meta other then THE EXACT SAME BUILDS be ANY more skilled? its impossible. if i win 100 percent of my PvPs and we mirror each others builds im clearly the better micro player and since protoss is the easiest macro race its not like a macro battle would be important and the nature of late game pvp any better at determining the best player. is it exciting to watch? no, but there is no better balance then 6 stalkers vs 6 stalkers and for some reason one person keeps winning? skill
stargate beats robo
robo beats twilight
twilight beats stargate
none of these can be scouted in time to change your build it is 100 percent rock paper scissor
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?
The OP couldn't have said it better. That era was so much more fun. Games were only a few minutes but the whole time it was non-stop fun. You had to be good to win. It was all exciting. None of the stupid sit in your base and build colossus crap we have now.
I still 4gate every PvP. I have a fairly decent win rate with it too because I've done it for 2 years and most people are either out of practice for it or weren't around when it was popular (not to mention after that long the build is practiced down to the second now. Playing against other people who are the same is a ton of fun because it shows who can get the most utility out of their units and make the correct decisions). I tried to do the whole lategame PvP thing when it started getting to be more common and not only do I find it less fun, but it takes way longer and it doesn't feel like the better player wins (This goes both ways. I've played people obviously worse than me who won because I lost a colossus to bad pathing. I've also beat people I have no right beating because it is obvious they are significantly better than me but I caught them out of position once after they beat me the whole game).
PvP was my favourite matchup until 4gate was nerfed into oblivion, then it turned into the stale RPS game it is today. But the 4gate still works, you just have to be smart about it now. You have to play mind games, make it look like you are doing something else. Or you just have to abuse people's laziness and hide probes in creative places or wait for their zealot and stalker to move out before sneaking into their base. Or you can just brute force it, which is what I usually do now. They miss one forcefield, they die, or if they let a single zealot up. after the pylon finishes.
PvP is going to suck so much in HOTS. No warping onto the high ground is going to make it easier to turtle behind a couple sentries. Hopefully it isn't worse than it is now.
Im okay with current PvP, but "4gate era" was way better. 4gate was problem for only newbie players who didn't know how to play the match-up. Any high level protoss would agree that PvP was more about skill before ramp fixes
Some 4 gate games are very entertaining. I still remember Huk vs Socke (Maybe was Kiwikaki) at the first SC2 MLG. I don't recall if those games were 4 gate or 2 or 3, but the one game on Blistering Sands was a very entertaining micro battle.
On the other hand, sometimes a player just falls over dead. I don't think there's a magic fix unless hopefully HotS.
The addition of the MS core in HOTS will probably remove the situations that lead to coin flips in matchup. However I will say that feedback on the Oracle instead of the High Templar would make things more interesting imo.
However, from a competitive standpoint the 4 gate ensured one thing - the better player won almost 100% of the time.
the better player still wins, instead of micro 4gate battles, it's all about the right army composition and positioning correctly, for example i dont rememeber if it was gsl or OSL, Rain vs hero. Rain was so much better at controlling his army positioning and having the perfect composition that he won, hero kept engaging without pre splitting his colossi etc so they all get hit with 1 huge volley and die
and all matches have the rock paper scissors element if you dont scout properly and play blindly
However, from a competitive standpoint the 4 gate ensured one thing - the better player won almost 100% of the time.
the better player still wins, instead of micro 4gate battles, it's all about the right army composition and positioning correctly, for example i dont rememeber if it was gsl or OSL, Rain vs hero. Rain was so much better at controlling his army positioning and having the perfect composition that he won, hero kept engaging without pre splitting his colossi etc so they all get hit with 1 huge volley and die
and all matches have the rock paper scissors element if you dont scout properly and play blindly
The biggest problem is that the superior player is harder to notice for spectators. Someone who doesn't understand lategame pvp army comps will just be confused why 2 immortals and an archon completely change a fight.
It's not like tvt where you can clearly see tank positioning, or zvz where.. well zvz sucks to watch too, stupid infested terrans.
the 4gate era was much less skill intensive than the current era because it was almost impossible to open w/ a duo gas build into sentrys. this in turn, forced less 1base stargate openers which made 1base collosus styles way more viable. the 1 base collo style is wat made pvp sorta coinflippy, im sure every protoss player remembers how hard it used to be to expo in a collo vs collo scenario
the sight nerf on cliffs made it so sentry openers became more viable which in turn diversified the matchup. its funny if u think about it, 1 small ingame change completely turned the matchup upside down. 1base collo b.os used to be the go to style and phoenix openers were considered to be risky, nowdays its the other way around : D
(From a spectator POV) I like the current PvP meta game better. The fact that we see more build-variations (Stargate-Phoenix openers is slowly becoming more popular) makes the game much much more interesting to watch. And it is not like the micro aspect has completely disappeared from PvP.
On November 25 2012 14:11 Drowsy wrote: One could definitely say it took more skill, but from a spectator/player perspective it was boring and monotonous as shit.
It was also very repetitive. There are only so many 1-base plays that a spectator can endure no matter how skillful they are played. The threat of 4gates and other 1-base builds put so many limits on the matchup that smothered a lot of variety. And it was still very coinflippy.
I don't like Colossus wars and prefer the constant aggression and micro of early/midgame PvP. But, the neutering of 4 Gate has had a massively positive effect on Protoss players and the overall PvP MU. Having watched Naniwa v Feast and MC v Grubby over the last couple of days, it's hard to argue that 4 Gate based PvP was better. Really, it wasn't.
While it is good that the better player wins most of the time, I feel the matches need to be entertaining, both when playing and watching. The everyone 4 gating is just ridiculous to be honest. But right now in the meta game of the Korean pros, the 4 gate is not the necessarily the way to go, even if it is used still. When compared to BW, SC2 is a game that entails more luck and build orders, as seen with the rapid changes of winners. A champion can end up in the up&down matches very easily, even if that said champion has easier groups through selection. In BW, champions are able to reign for a longer time, and you would expect players like Flash or Jaedong to be able to get far in tournaments all the time. I wish SC2 would be the same, so you can support a player without fear of him disappearing after a season into Code B and below.
However I dislike HOTS as it is right now, it is expensive, new units are not well balanced, not well integrated and just not enough to justify the price of the game. The only thing worthy is the campaign which I might play (or I can just watch other people play it). I have watched a lot of HoTS gameplay from huskystarcraft and I really dislike what I see so far. Of course it is still in Beta, but I feel they need to make some drastic changes for it to become a good expansion.
Now BW players are coming to SC2 and are doing well considering the late start, which just shows the level in mechanics between the players.
The premise that the 4gate dominated era would lead to the better player winning is way off. It allowed the better micro player win, since there were less decisions to make in a 4 gate vs 4 gate scenario and macro at that point of the game is much easier to manage.
While Colossus wars are becoming the end of every mid to late game PvP, it's much more interesting from both a spectator and player perspective to see the paths to get there. We can see a Protoss player slowly gain advantages through small harassment that culminates into a victory when his better upgrades and stronger composition eventually crushes his opponents.
God no, that was terrible. We might look back on it and romanticize it, but deep down all Protosses know it was one big game of rock, paper, scissors. It was literally knowing your opponent was doing what you are doing and the game is completely based off of if you are doing a defensive 3 gate / 4 gate, or an offensive 4 gate. Even more than that, it was about silly mistakes deciding entire games rather than large mistakes. 1 probe being off by a second meant WG being off by a couple seconds and losing the game at really high levels, not something I want to go back to .
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?
You cleary haven't watched many SC2 if you think all games are decided by 200/200 battle. The most recent is Taeja vs Nerchio in dreamhack.
PvP is going to fix it self eventually once all the pros realize that fast expand can defend anything and everything assuming you make no mistakes, after that we'll start seeing more macro oriented plays and the meta game should develop.
On November 25 2012 15:21 Astro-Penguin wrote: PvP is going to fix it self eventually once all the pros realize that fast expand can defend anything and everything assuming you make no mistakes, after that we'll start seeing more macro oriented plays and the meta game should develop.
Except it cant, and never will. Blink stalkers will always rape fast expands. Always. I'm tired of "macro oriented plays" that leads to boring ass 15 minutes of nothing but observer killing. 4 gate was 4 minutes of waiting and 15 minutes of incredible micro to see who won. Granted sometimes someone fucked up in the first 30 seconds and lost but it's better to lose that way then because you tried to go stargate and he went dts and you lose. That's boring as fuck. I'd rather watch micro over watching someone have a better strat. How's watching pvz going with those infestor broodlord "superior strategy". It's turned into protoss having to 2 base every game before teh zerg gets infestors and BL's.
The current PvP is too coinflippy. Whenever I see a PvP...first I am like Fuck! Because you never who's going to come out on top. As a protoss fan it's frustrating when a strong protoss is taken out in a PvP.
It seems for protoss to win a tournament they have to survive PvPs. Even when it's clear who the strong overall player is, in PvP that doesn't count for much.
I don't understand how fourgate is entertaining. There was almost no strategy whatsoever, and like 30secs of micro rofl. And how is pulling a weaken stalker impressive micro, I mean come on seeing blink observer on cloud kingdom vs a guy that expanded and went robo is always fucking amazing to watch no?
Just because the player with superior micro wins it does not in any way shape or form make the matchup better. Its like for example, the MMA fighter with bigger muscles winning every time. This is a strategy game, not a micro mini-game.
While I understand that mico of PvP is intense, it is not as exaggerated as the broadcasters say. When you were saying MC would have a high win rate in PvP, if you watched every match of MC's back in the day you will see that MC is winning not because of micro; it is because other players are trying something different, something greedy. MC is always the one on the offensive, and have more units (and less probes), so he ended up winning. I would say that he won because of his aggressiveness because in all honesty, the micro of the Korean protosses are very similar at the top.
For me TvT has always been the best, even against non-mirror matchups. You cannot say who is OP and complain when it is mirror XD. I only hate it when both players go banshee cloaked because it is so messy.
Comparing 4gate to the current PvP is like comparing a car accident to a traffic jam. If the former is 'better' it's only because, although painful, it's shorter and has a morbid can't-look-away appeal, whereas the latter simply bores you to death. That being said if PvP is to ever to become a good or at least watchable matchup, escaping the 4gate era was a necessity even if it causes problems in the short term.
Absolutely not. PvP is probably in the best place it's ever been since release right now. The PvP's played at DH Winter were almost all an absolute joy to watch.
On November 25 2012 08:36 HolydaKing wrote: Absolutely no...
Besides Colossi wars i think that PvP nowadays is getting more and more entertaining. I love the phoenix wars which somehow start to appear in professional games lately.
I agree. I really like watching blink Stalkers and Phoenix.
its frustrating to see people misconstrue fun with the better player winning
pvp i think everyone agrees isnt fun to watch as 4 gate. i enjoy playing it but thats subjective
as to the better player winning? its IMPOSSIBLE with current meta to have the better pvp player win every time or even most times. (obviously this doesnt account for individual skill but the counter tree when applied to 2 equal players results in the right tech winning)
On November 25 2012 15:21 Astro-Penguin wrote: PvP is going to fix it self eventually once all the pros realize that fast expand can defend anything and everything assuming you make no mistakes, after that we'll start seeing more macro oriented plays and the meta game should develop.
Except it cant, and never will. Blink stalkers will always rape fast expands. Always. I'm tired of "macro oriented plays" that leads to boring ass 15 minutes of nothing but observer killing. 4 gate was 4 minutes of waiting and 15 minutes of incredible micro to see who won. Granted sometimes someone fucked up in the first 30 seconds and lost but it's better to lose that way then because you tried to go stargate and he went dts and you lose. That's boring as fuck. I'd rather watch micro over watching someone have a better strat. How's watching pvz going with those infestor broodlord "superior strategy". It's turned into protoss having to 2 base every game before teh zerg gets infestors and BL's.
Blink only works on maps like Cloud Kingdom or Antiga where you can abuse him with harass, (meaning you cant fast expand on said maps). Trust me when I say on a map like Ohana or Daybreak you are absolutely not going to get broken with any sort of Blink build given the fact that you will be able to not only utilize your Robo but also the extra production you can get by having the warp gate upgrade finish seconds after units pop out of your gateway giving you a quick influx of units.
Basically if your given a ramp like Ohana you can stall with forcefield pretty easy until his attack is just simply to weak to attack up, and on a map like Daybreak with long distances just utilize 3 Stalker openings to ensure no pylons pop up slowing his warp ins down by forcing his army to babysit it until it finishes, this in return will also force him to warp in at home and walk all the way across a long map. Blink all ins are usually on a timer, they have to kill someone before 2 Immortals pop. If you want I can go into further detail on how to hold other things.
Don't knock it until you try it, the builds are solid people just don't seem to understand it yet as pros tend to not have the opportunity to be able to refine and experiment with such things if they want to win tournaments.
On November 25 2012 19:20 Big J wrote: The better player did not win, the player with the better end of the triangle defensive 4gate > offensive 4gate > Tech-Build > defensive 4gate won.
Even more the notion that the player with the better micro is the better play is plainly wrong, SC2 is an RTS.
defensive 4 gate is supposed to win if you dont warp in offensively with 2 pylons at bottom of ramp right away. both players should be warping in the EXACT same unit amounts at the same time. there literally is no dif between a def vs offensive 4 gate unless it is outside the first warp in
lets say the world is even when refering def vs off 4gating. at least its a 50 50 chance rather then 33.3 percent chance (the better player will win 4 gate v 4 gate most times) go look at gsl win rates in matchups during pvp 4 gate era.
On November 25 2012 08:27 Arco wrote: I think PvP right now is actually one of the more skill based matchups. Sure 4gate vs 4gate lead to the better micro player winning a lot, but that doesn't mean he's the overall better player. I think games need to have a chance to enter the midgame to determine who is the victor.
In HotS PvP is a lot more interesting. There is a lot more Gateway usage and harassment due to the "death" of the Colossus in the matchup. Tempests are easily accessible and have pretty much made mass Colossi suicide. I think we'll see a lot more Gateway based armies supported by Immortals, Archons, and Tempests than the boring "war of the worlds" that we see in WoL PvP today.
Haven't played much HOTS pvp but why is colossus dead?
short games are boring. prefer longer games with lots of small micro battles over one micro battle that decides game in first 10 mins.
to be fair, in pvp, every time your opening is screwed, you aren't dead, you are just really behind for a long time and hope for the best engagement to win. that's my opinion anyway.
I personally don't understand what you are trying to say, because in my opinion the better player usually wins in it's current format.
Just because MC isn't winning, doesn't mean it is broken, it could just mean that MC is good in some areas while other Protoss players are better in other areas. Some players like to rely on micro, some people prefer to focus on macro, some people prefer to focus on metagaming, or sometimes people like to combine them all. I've seen a few PVP upsets, but I feel like their were so many more upsets during the 4 gate days, usually involving a lesser player running into his opponents base with a 4 gate while his opponent is a sitting duck somewhere else on the map.
On November 25 2012 19:18 FuRong wrote: I guess it was more exciting, almost like BW ZvZ.
For me, that describes it well. I enjoy watching 4gate vs 4gate because of the importance of execution.
I don't mind that it was nerfed, because I can appreciate other people not enjoying micro battles, but I still liked it a lot better than the current meta in PvP.
PvP has evolved in almost my favourite matchup, there are so many strategies in that matchup compared to PvZ or something. THe only thing I don't like is a war of the worlds
On November 25 2012 18:42 NotoriousBig wrote: No, it´s sooo incredible interresting to watch, with all the Mindgames involved, actually PvP turned into my favourite matchup
I agree. I love the action, micro, early aggresion. Combined with Mindgames and different builds (contrary to ZvZ). More interesting than seeing 2 players macro up in other matchups.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter about those kind of stats. Imagine if in ZvZ, you were only given a certain amount of lings and banes each. You can't make anything else, or anything less. That is the battle. The better player would win 90% of the time like you say, but the games would be god boring to watch because it's the same thing over and over again.
Don't get me wrong, ling bane as well as 4gate is fun to watch, but not every. Single. Game.
OP's whole post fails because he doens't know how to apply statistics. MC won 90% or w/E because he was a shitton better than everyone else back then. He isn't that today.
And 4gate was a hopelessly volatile match up. One little micro mistkae --> lost game.
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.
Having a matchup being entirely dominated by single strat is NEVER ever a good thing. Balanced? Maybe. But it makes everything completely stale and horrible to watch.
On November 26 2012 00:38 Antares_ wrote: 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.
but when its basicly becomes a coinflip it doesn't.
short games are boring. prefer longer games with lots of small micro battles over one micro battle that decides game in first 10 mins.
Have you seen a 20 minute PvP? It's just a giant colossi vs colossi a move and whoever has more colossi wins the game in one giant 20 second fight with almost no micro.
Even if 4gate was more consistent with bringing forth the better player at micro, there are other aspects of the game to consider as well. SC2 isn't just all about micro and I would prefer to see some decision making come into play at high level games than to see who can command their units best. It's great to see amazing control, but it isn't the only reason I like the game.
There's two parts of Starcraft, one is called macro and one is called micro, also the longer the game lasts the higher the chance of the better player winning will be. That is all.
On November 26 2012 13:04 TeAL_ wrote: There's two parts of Starcraft, one is called macro and one is called micro, also the longer the game lasts the higher the chance of the better player winning will be. That is all.
There is also strategy. This game would be a lot more boring if the player with the better micro/macro always won.
I'm just not seeing these hard counters people talk about when discussing pvp. I mean there are a few obvious ones like dt beats phoenix, but for the most part all openings are viable against almost all other openings. Some openings leave you in a bad position vs other openings, but that's far from being a hard counter. For example, I have heard people claim phoenix beats robo, but I have seen robo beat phoenix all the time. I have seen pro's open 3 gate robo, and then when they scouted phoenix just skipped immortals for collosus, and have been able to either do a push or expand really fast. There are a ton of options, and new openings being explored all the time, but even more interesting than the openings themselves are the transitions and reactions to opponents builds.
No, pvp isn't a pure micro fest anymore, that's not a bad thing though. There's a good deal more strategy in the matchup now. It makes the matchup way more interesting to watch and play, and gives strategic players ways to outthink an opponent who may outclass them in mechanics, and that is a completely legitimate way to win.
On November 26 2012 13:42 Carbonthief wrote: I'm just not seeing these hard counters people talk about when discussing pvp.
The most notable I can think of, was Seed vs MC GSL finals. If I recall correctly, MC lost every game due to build orders (hard countering). I believe the actual tournament (game play) was under 90 minutes. It was ridiculously short and pathetic moment showcasing the severe lack of quality SC2 can have at moments.
As a player I kinda preferred the days before phoenix builds the most. With the introduction of phoenix builds PvP has gotten worse imo. Phoenix vs Phoenix is really random and not that fun, and Phoenix vs anything else tends to be one of those games where both players max before they attack.
The time of blink, robo, and some expanding builds was the most fun imo.
Oh and BW PvP was way better than any Sc2 PvP so far T_T
4Gate is still very much viable, it's just a PART of the metagame now instead of being "the metagame" in and of itself. Greedy/tech builds are popular in PvP, often one player will go a bit more "safe" and be at a disadvantage in the long run against the greedier player, however these "greedy" openings that get a quicker tech or a better economy often are not "4 Gate safe", so it still holds an important place in a matchup as something that you have to account for IF you want your build to be safe; it's a strategy that you can go to as a means of punishing someone who is trying to, say, delay their 2nd Gate too much or skipping/getting late Sentries in favor of getting their tech out quicker, getting a quicker Nexus or something to that effect and getting an advantage on you in a BoX series. If someone has a tendency to go quick 2nd gas 1 Gate robo and getting a better Colossus count that leads into a dificult econ advantage and you recognize it, you can sometimes 4Gate him and just get a build order win. Essentially, it's not dead because its mere existence serves the purpose of keeping players honest in PvP.
As far as build order rock paper scissors, it's not necessarily like that in PvP; the Robo/Stargate/Twilight counter triangle is more of a soft-counter relationship. Blink against Robo expand is very map-dependent and there are many ways it can play out with no clear "winner" where you could say "he has an inherent advantage because Robo counters Twilight" or vice versa; the same goes for Phoenix vs. Blink openers; it's definitely not a huge advantage for the blink player, Phoenixes can definitely work and get out a faster expansion. The only real super hard-counter (tech-wise) is going for an unsafe Stargate opener and just flat out never getting detection and losing to a fast DT build, but most people going Stargate get a Robo down either before their 3rd Gateway or shortly after, because one of the advantage of Phoenix openings is keeping his gas probe count in check, expanding quicker and possibly ending up with higher Colossus count often off of double Robo. You can't simply say "Robo > Twilight > Stargate > Robo"; it's nowhere near as simple as that.
Well seeing how PvP is still a deciding factor in openings, Do you like PvP still? it has changed because people don't do it anymore doesn't mean it still doesn't have it's potency. Also 4 gates are pretty good in HOTS too mothership core giving vision help you snipe off sentries
On November 26 2012 13:42 Carbonthief wrote: I'm just not seeing these hard counters people talk about when discussing pvp.
The most notable I can think of, was Seed vs MC GSL finals. If I recall correctly, MC lost every game due to build orders (hard countering). I believe the actual tournament (game play) was under 90 minutes. It was ridiculously short and pathetic moment showcasing the severe lack of quality SC2 can have at moments.
Oh god I remember that.
I was hyped up for a proper showcase of how much PvP had improved from 4-gate all day, every day. Finally putting to rest the perception it was literally all about 4-gates and mass colossus.
Instead we got that...mess...
Regardless, no. Its better now. Especially with stuff like Phoenix builds (♥ Phoenix).
Just look at HotS PvP, actually is the best mu by far ... in WoL maybe the're some flaws, but the next future seems bright and very enjoyable either for players and spectators.
On November 26 2012 19:52 InVerno wrote: Just look at HotS PvP, actually is the best mu by far ... in WoL maybe the're some flaws, but the next future seems bright and very enjoyable either for players and spectators.
Oh definitely, HotS PvP looks nothing short of amazing right now, can't wait untill builds become more fleshed out.
Immortals, phoenix, blink stalkers, collossi, long macro games requiring so much thought, micro and macro.
And you want to go back to 4-gate roll the dice. Why???????? PvP is SO much more interesting now, it's actually one of my favourite match-ups to watch (I don't play anymore but I was diamond Protoss, with PvP my best match up, I rarely 4 gated and tried immortal or stargate builds.)
On November 25 2012 08:20 mTwRINE wrote: With 4 Gate you have defense>offense>tech>defense rock paper scissor. Without 4 Gate you only have techroute rock paper scissor.
So its way better the way it is now.
Maybe in theory. There was no such rock paper scissor with 4 gate wars. Offense always had the upper hand. Even if you somehow defend, you never get to leave outside your base because the failed 4-gater will leave the game. A frustrating and masochistic way of winning, I'd say.
Edit: Is my memory failing? I rarely succeeded nor saw pros succeeding in defensive 4 gate. But I get to see quotes as this
On November 25 2012 08:29 Shebuha wrote: "the better player won almost 100% of the time." Well, that's true a lot of the time, but what's more true is that the player who plays better in a given game will win. In PvP the player who defensive 4 gated won almost 100% of the time against the aggressive 4 gater, and the teching player won a lot of the time against the defensive 4 gater.
I like playing PvP nowadays which I didn't before. If it's more fun to spectate or not is hard to me to answer because what makes the MU interesting for me is to study the play and choices of both players.
I don't want to go back to 4gate fest days. PvP now is a matchup of finess, mind and balls of steel (Much like ZvZ btw). Unlike non mirror matchups you can't rely on assymetry to play greedy, every expansion must be thought out, every move can have big consequences. As for the Colossus wars, it was shown that more Colossi =/= instant win and it's still a battle of positioning and army composition.
Yeah I like the way it used to be better than how it is now. Change it back IMO.
...wait what thread am I in? I didn't read any of the words here including the title but I saw "was" and "better" and I definitely agree with those words in literally any context of human experience
(seriously this thread is defeatist as hell. why do B/O coinflip and 4gate have to be our only options?)
On November 27 2012 03:02 c0sm0naut wrote: it was better with 4gate in my opinion because i didnt auto lose from going robo against his stargate, i autoloss by having worse unit control
The autoloss thing is no longer true, there's a couple of early stalker poke timings that scout the tech... Although that's coming from a person who stargates every game anyway so take that with a grain of salt.
do you want only protoss with good micro to be rewarded and the macro and startegy tosses be left to die or would you prefer a scene where everyone has an equal chance?
I'm glad that PvP has changed. 4 Gate is still a viable build and you can beat players who doesn't pay attention but tech builds are the "beauty" of PvP. Blink micro, phoenix multitasking, etc. ... love it. But the PvP lategame colossi wars are just stupid, I must admit. I hope the tempest will be a solution for this problem.
A ridiculous statement... There are multiple Protoss who have very high win rates in PvP or look very strong in it in its current form. It will only be better in HOTS. As much as I have a dislike of Kespa players due to their overzealous fans, Rain is a beast in that match and has shown how you can win through greater skill. 4 gate allowed for much larger upsets if you messed up somewhere.
On November 25 2012 08:20 mTwRINE wrote: With 4 Gate you have defense>offense>tech>defense rock paper scissor. Without 4 Gate you only have techroute rock paper scissor.
So its way better the way it is now.
Maybe in theory. There was no such rock paper scissor with 4 gate wars. Offense always had the upper hand. Even if you somehow defend, you never get to leave outside your base because the failed 4-gater will leave the game. A frustrating and masochistic way of winning, I'd say.
Edit: Is my memory failing? I rarely succeeded nor saw pros succeeding in defensive 4 gate. But I get to see quotes as this
On November 25 2012 08:29 Shebuha wrote: "the better player won almost 100% of the time." Well, that's true a lot of the time, but what's more true is that the player who plays better in a given game will win. In PvP the player who defensive 4 gated won almost 100% of the time against the aggressive 4 gater, and the teching player won a lot of the time against the defensive 4 gater.
??
Defensive four gate got you a slight edge vs. a full four gate, but you're right, the offensive player can camp the ramp and the ramp vision was higher then so it was easier to see your opponent coming down.
Alot of people making those rock paper scissor comments are only thinking about the TDA matchup where you can't really camp the choke quite as hard since its a two forcefield choke.
Who says you can't still 4 gate? It's obviously not as viable as it was but I know GM's who 4 gate pvp on a semi-regular basis and we've seen modified versions at top level play to (I think it was Hero who tried it vs Rain last season? I could be wrong). At a mid-master level I still 4 gate a fair amount and PvP is by far my best match up.
Just because there is ways to hard stop it doesn't mean it's totally gone.
Edit: Should clarify, this is why it's better now, there is so many more options that it makes a type of 4 gate just one strategy in a list of many that can work given the right circumstance and execution, vs before where 4gate was just all you did.
I prefer PvP now-adays over the old 4-gate styles. The main flaw of PvP now is the prevalence of robotics units, especially colossus in big numbers making attacking into certain positions very unappealing.
Lets just wait for Hots bringing in new units, especially the tempest potentially breaking colossus in large numbers!
I like the actual state of PvP right now, even tho 4 gate was fun some years ago... 4 gate isn't as strong as it was before, and even now, you can't really win with 4 gate against Zerg/Terran anymore...
Seriously, combatex just nearly beat parting at PvP, I'm sorry i feel that's good reason to bump this thread, I don't know how i feel about a matchup where such a thing can happen, seriously what the hell!
On November 27 2012 18:55 NexCa wrote: I like the actual state of PvP right now, even tho 4 gate was fun some years ago... 4 gate isn't as strong as it was before, and even now, you can't really win with 4 gate against Zerg/Terran anymore...
It's terrible when in a matchup both players do always the same thing. Now there is a variety of openings such as blink, phoenixes, etc. Of course lategame is very annoying, but at least early/mid game is funny, and the majority of PvPs finishes before it even with the 4 gate being less common.
On November 30 2012 19:32 willyallthewei wrote: Seriously, combatex just nearly beat parting at PvP, I'm sorry i feel that's good reason to bump this thread, I don't know how i feel about a matchup where such a thing can happen, seriously what the hell!
Did you even watch the games? Are you mental? Do you know why do we have BO3 in tournaments?
Top GM player taking a game off one of the best players in the world is so absurd to you, that it means something's wrong with the matchup? And what does it have to do with 4 gate?! (Nothing. Don't bother replying, it's just FYI)
On November 25 2012 08:36 HolydaKing wrote: Absolutely no...
Besides Colossi wars i think that PvP nowadays is getting more and more entertaining. I love the phoenix wars which somehow start to appear in professional games lately.
Yes! The matchup is awesome. Fast 3 warpgate allins, two base blink stalker, phoenix wars and even things like 1 gate expands are all possible to do nowadays, and it's all very entertaining to watch. Not to mention proxy robo builds.
But even those games that end in war of the worlds can be entertaining. Players seems to have realised that crazy colossi splitting and stutterstepping is a necessary thing to practice, and they have discovered that warp prisms are great. Such games - when executed with skill and multitasking - are exciting to watch.
4 gate vs 4 gate is extremely boring to watch. Remember when expanding in pvp was a shocker? Now we expand all the time which allows more variance. Ofc it sometimes goes colo wars which at least dustin browder has acknowledged as stagnant (sorry I don't have the source. It's in a recent interview somewhere. I think Blizzard's recent tourny in China). Best case situation for pvp, colo are rarely used and we get to see very diverse compositions every game.
On November 30 2012 19:32 willyallthewei wrote: Seriously, combatex just nearly beat parting at PvP, I'm sorry i feel that's good reason to bump this thread, I don't know how i feel about a matchup where such a thing can happen, seriously what the hell!
Did you even watch the games? Are you mental? Do you know why do we have BO3 in tournaments?
Top GM player taking a game off one of the best players in the world is so absurd to you, that it means something's wrong with the matchup? And what does it have to do with 4 gate?! (Nothing. Don't bother replying, it's just FYI)
I don't need to know much more than the fact that a guy whose first off mid GM on NA ladder nearly beat a professional korean player who won WCS and trains in a pro house day and night with strategy advice from the best starcraft minds in the world.
Are you one of those mediocre low-GM or high masters players who actually think that this makes you good (or even decent)?
Sorry if i sound like an ass, but any game where a mid gm NA player with little to no tournament experience can take a standard game off a top flight korean pro, there's something wrong with that game.
It should be a basic, fundamental part of game design (one that's clearly present in Broodwar) where, multitasking and control should trump everything unless you are even in it, that is my belief. Unless i can match both your APM and precision, i should not stand a chance, its the moment that those two things are within a small disparity, that we move on to understanding and strategy.
A matchup dictated by strategic choice so much IMO is a bad matchup, it leaves things to chance.
It has to do w/ the fourgate because when each side has exactly the same amount of probes, the same warp in cool downs and equal units, the stronger player prevails 99% of the time.
On November 27 2012 18:55 NexCa wrote: I like the actual state of PvP right now, even tho 4 gate was fun some years ago... 4 gate isn't as strong as it was before, and even now, you can't really win with 4 gate against Zerg/Terran anymore...
watch some gsl
Beating a terran with a 4 gate because he decided to go 3 CC off 2 marines has nothing to do with 4 gate being so strong. That's just protoss' cheesiest and earliest allin vs a mkp level greedy build.
no, but it's still a trash matchup. The "tactical wheel" part of it is really frustrating to play as a player... You open robo, you die to stargate. You open stargate, you struggle vs blink builds. You open twilight, you struggle vs robo. You open pressure, you die to so on and so on...
Right now PvP is one of the most fun matchups to watch because of all the safe viable diverse tech paths. You've obviously got your risky tech paths as well. Example of a safe tech path: Stargates. They are practically useless in every other mu, but can be used with great efficiency in PvP. Then there is robo tech and gateway tech all extremely useful.
EPT
.
