EPTThe Three Minds of a Starcraft Competitor - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
istandwithmitt
Brazil117 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On September 20 2013 22:04 Slydie wrote: Also in the end of WoL when almost every zerg would go bl-infestor, that would classify them all as...? They were all the purest of Masterminds. They knew their shit. Meanwhile Terrans and Protosses were fat smoking Athletes. | ||
|
Zvonimir
Australia22 Posts
On September 20 2013 22:04 Slydie wrote: Also in the end of WoL when almost every zerg would go bl-infestor, that would classify them all as...? Brood lord infestor was such an efficient unit composition that it was the dominant force in both vP and vT (and occasionally vZ, RoRo vs Symbol Grand Finals Game 1... Never Forget...). The differences came in how players reach that composition and how they deal with stumbling blocks along the way. During this period and Symbols run to the finals, regardless of his late game, patient play I still had the feel of rigid build orders defining his play. Life is a good example as he would buck the trend and slow his tech in order to have units on the field to exact damage against his opponent with, I always saw him as an athlete. So there are still distinctions, but like Protoss, it becomes more difficult to discern the style from the noise of the races mechanics/meta. | ||
|
Boucot
France15997 Posts
| ||
|
Zvonimir
Australia22 Posts
On September 20 2013 21:05 DarkLordOlli wrote: Now here's the thing. Player example: LiquidHerO (of course.) When considering Hero, I always look back to his multiple sets/games against Rain. Rain being the definitive Protoss Mastermind. There are multiple occasions of Hero being unable to exact damage from Rain, or of having achieved damage but failing to capitalise on the lead. Ultimately, for the purpose of the article I focused on players who have been playing in the Korean WCS Premier League as they provide multiple consecutive sets against evenly(relative to other tournaments) matched opponents. From memory I would consider Hero an Athlete which still bucks the trend of most Protoss. | ||
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On September 20 2013 22:40 Zvonimir wrote: When considering Hero, I always look back to his multiple sets/games against Rain. Rain being the definitive Protoss Mastermind. There are multiple occasions of Hero being unable to exact damage from Rain, or of having achieved damage but failing to capitalise on the lead. Ultimately, for the purpose of the article I focused on players who have been playing in the Korean WCS Premier League as they provide multiple consecutive sets against evenly(relative to other tournaments) matched opponents. From memory I would consider Hero an Athlete which still bucks the trend of most Protoss. Hm, weird. I'd actually switch it around. Rain excels at just being better mechanically than everybody else. That's why he doesn't take damage, that's why every engagement he takes usually ends up in his favor. But then you watch a game like the one he played vs Hyvaa in Proleague and he just completely fell apart in a chaotic situation. Like, the top players all seem to fit into more than one category it seems. | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
 | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On September 20 2013 22:40 Zvonimir wrote: When considering Hero, I always look back to his multiple sets/games against Rain. Rain being the definitive Protoss Mastermind. There are multiple occasions of Hero being unable to exact damage from Rain, or of having achieved damage but failing to capitalise on the lead. Ultimately, for the purpose of the article I focused on players who have been playing in the Korean WCS Premier League as they provide multiple consecutive sets against evenly(relative to other tournaments) matched opponents. From memory I would consider Hero an Athlete which still bucks the trend of most Protoss. You just claim Rain is the definitive protoss mastermind without any method of getting to that conclusion. You're just working based on your intuition, which can be helpful but can't replace methods if you want to apply an approach like this. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
| ||
|
c0sm0naut
United States1229 Posts
| ||
|
jtp118
United States137 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
painkilla
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
Zvonimir
Australia22 Posts
On September 20 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote: Hm, weird. I'd actually switch it around. Rain excels at just being better mechanically than everybody else. That's why he doesn't take damage, that's why every engagement he takes usually ends up in his favor. But then you watch a game like the one he played vs Hyvaa in Proleague and he just completely fell apart in a chaotic situation. Like, the top players all seem to fit into more than one category it seems. But the trick is he usually doesn't use his mechanics to be aggressive, he uses them to be safe and then counter attacks with low cost units when the opponent is vulnerable. He focuses on not losing the game before trying to take an advantage. More than one occasion Rain has fallen apart in situations, but I believe it happens mostly when he doesn't have a bearing on the situation (a concept of what his opponent has/is capable of). A good example of an error is in the OSL finals against Maru on Star Station, I believe he was unsettled as Maru played a defensive rather than aggressive game on a map widely believed to be easily abused by drops. When he pushed out he encountered an entrenched Maru, the resulting engagement directly lead to his loss. | ||
|
Zvonimir
Australia22 Posts
On September 21 2013 06:43 painkilla wrote: Any good player have elements of all three styles but it doesn't mean the article isn't useful. We think of Innovation as having perfect execution rather than mind games even though he has both. We can classify the players according to their most defining characteristics. But the OP lacks examples, analysis and and the categories aren't well defined. You are correct, more examples would be useful, however there were time factors (I spent an evening writing notes on each game, then another writing it and another reviewing) and I believed if I had made the article too long it would not gain traction. When discussing it with x5.PiG and a few other that had read the article before I made the post, I found that they could define the categories quite clearly to me and that assured me that I had conveyed my concepts appropriately. However, seeing a few disgruntled posts here I may go back and make a chart or dot points to clearly identify characteristics. I am confident in my selection of players to styles but to make it evident it may require an entire series of articles reviewing their play across sets and seasons. | ||
|
Fibbz
Germany62 Posts
| ||
|
tomastaz
United States976 Posts
| ||
| ||
