Once upon a time, a TL.net writer got tired of interviewing Serral and getting the same professional and polite responses every time. The solution? Interview someone who has strong opinions and is willing to stick to them.
Jokes aside, with IEM Katowice 2020 right around the corner, we'll be putting out a handful of interviews with pros to discuss the new ESL Pro Tour, find out who to keep an eye on headed into IEM, and help us ease our way back into full-blown professional StarCraft II.
And if such a player was also okay with giving us their brutally honest opinions on how the ZvZ's went at BlizzCon 2019? Well, that's all the better.
*This interview has been edited and condensed. What makes the ESL Pro Tour an improvement over WCS.
Wax: All the pros seem really happy about the new ESL Pro Tour. But from a fan perspective, it looks basically the same as the old WCS Circuit. What are the big improvements from a pro perspective?
Lambo: One of the changes that I really like is that they changed the regional qualification spot distribution a little bit. I didn't really mind that Europe had the same number of seeded spots as North America, even though we were stronger. But what I really didn't like was that they used to give out WCS points for Challenger/regional qualifiers, because those WCS points actually mattered quite often and it was a big advantage [for certain regions].
Wax: Right, like Has in 2018 when he won three of the Taiwanese Challenger tournaments [Note: 600 of his 2490 Circuit points that year].
It also helps with seeding and stuff, so that's just something I'm very happy about.
And I think that bringing back the Go4SC2 weeklies and giving them ESL Pro tour points is also really, really cool. I think with the new points distribution, it might actually make a difference. I believe HeroMarine already got like 40 points purely from playing the European Server Cup—he won three and got second twice. I think in the end, if you wait one year, I think these points will add up.
Very often in the last system, a few points made the difference. In 2018 I might not have made the [Global Finals cutoff] when I missed a Challenger when I was in Korea. If Reynor had won WCS Montreal, I would have lost eighth place to Nerchio by just a few points [*Note: 25 points exactly]. So I do believe it matters, the points.
What's better about ESL running the system instead of Blizzard?
I mean, the worst part of Blizzard, the way they handled the WCS Circuit was that they announced everything super late. Before, it was basically impossible to plan a year. You couldn't plan any vacations because they would announce Challenger way too late, that kind of stuff. I can now ask Apollo when the qualifiers are, and he's probably going to have an answer for me, you know? I absolutely could ask [Blizzard people] before, but they usually wouldn't have an answer until very late.
Current design patch: One of the best metas for Terran vs Zerg?
How's StarCraft II looking, now that we've seen the game play out a bit on the new patch and new maps?
I think the new patch is pretty nice. It's definitely better than before. Obviously Zerg is worse than before, but we're still doing fine. The map pool in general, it didn't change too much. We still have a lot of very big maps, a lot of maps that are pretty good for Zerg.
In general, it's just way better that the late game is more even, because you can't just sit back and do nothing and then win even though you're mining less than your opponent. So that kind of playstyle which was really toxic for the game because it was boring to watch, it got nerfed a lot. Now if you actually have an advantage as the other races, they can take map control and they will win with decent late game engagements, as it should be.
Another big change would be that in general, mech got a lot better, so now mech is actually viable. There is basically one extra playstyle in the game, which is always fun to watch, right?
Any thoughts on Protoss going mass-air again, since it's a composition that's been toxic in the past?
I think Skytoss is a lot better—if you go in with an advantage you can finish the game quite often with just Carriers. I think there's also a style where you get a couple of Tempests and try to be active on the map—you have a big ground army underneath the Tempests and try to split up and engage at multiple places, maybe trying to snipe Brood Lords. So there's different styles that Protoss can play. I think if you actually go to super maxed-out armies where Zerg also has a million spores, I still think the Zerg army is better, but it's very hard to get there.
So how does this current meta rate historically?
I think it's pretty good, and I think this is maybe the best one in TvZ? Because mech is so strong and Zerg actually needs to do stuff against mech. Which means there is no massive army ... like, there are a lot of different tech switches Zerg can do—there is Swarm Host multi-prong, just getting a lot of drones, trying to trade with Blinding Cloud armies, tech switching to Brood Lords and back into Ultras, and stuff like that.
And then I think bio is also very, very strong. Then we have Lurkers, which is an extra style for Zerg against Bio—even though that's mostly timing based, since once Liberators and Ghosts are out it becomes pretty bad. But I think ZvT is probably the most versatile it has been for a while.
Things have been stable, but Clem is a 'newcomer' to look out for ahead of IEM Katowice.
Who are the best Circuit players headed into Katowice? Is it just the same old guys who are good right now in the foreign scene?
I think it's mostly the same. The eight BlizzCon players from last year—although I have no idea how good TIME is right now. And then I would say it's the next couple of... it's Drogo, me, [etc.] And then there's one new guy that—I mean he's not really that new, but it's Clem. He got a lot better during the last few months. So I think he can be one of the top dogs now as well.
As good as SpeCial, HeroMarine, and TIME?
I think Clem is already as good as them, pretty much. I'm not sure if he's worse in Terran vs Terran, but I feel like all these top Terrans, they just beat one another, and sometimes they lose super hard. For example Special, I think he just beat Gabe and Clem 2-0 from Korea to Europe, which is pretty insane, in the IEM qualifier.
But as a Zerg, in Terran vs Zerg at the very least, they're at a similar level. I would even say Clem is a little bit better.
How about someone a bit less known? Someone who hasn't had a chance to shine in Nation Wars or a high profile tournament like Clem.
Outside of the normal people, not really. I will say maybe Soul—he always can play on the highest level, but that's not something new. He was always able to beat the best players, and then sometimes he just loses against the clowns. I'm not sure what to make of it, honestly. At some point, he could make a deep run. He can beat a Stats, as he did at Katowice a while ago, and then he could lose against PAPI, a random Polish player.
So, what happened in all those crazy BlizzCon ZvZ's?
Let's go back a bit and talk about BlizzCon and Zerg vs. Zerg. From the progamer point of view, what happened in that ridiculous Reynor comeback that eliminated Serral from the semis?
Actually, I made an analysis video and put it on Youtube. Basically, I think people overestimated Serral's position that game. That game was on a knife's edge where if Serral finds one more opening, the game will end. But if he doesn't, and Reynor stabilizes, he's actually in a shitty position.
I heard Ultras were actually the theoretically correct tech for Serral in those kinds of situations, despite the general reaction.
It is, for sure. I think in this game as well. The one mistake he made was not adding Vipers at all. I think that was a poor decision. He also had bunch of Ultras stuck in his natural during a really important part of the game.
It's very, very difficult as a Muta player to transition to Lurkers yourself, because you're going to be behind in upgrades and all your army is going to be useless. Because nothing synergizes with your Lurkers. You actually need Lurkers, and Hydras, and Vipers. So for your unused ling-bane-muta you need to throw it all away, which is really hard against mass Spores, Lurkers, and Parasitic Bombs.
Basically, his position wasn't actually that good. If he wanted to go Lurker, he needed to do that earlier into the game.
I think in general, most of the players that were there were performing worse than usual. I think it might have something to do with going to Korea and then next week going to LA to play. I think both Serral and Reynor played worse than they usually do.
Even in the other matches, there were some uncharacteristic mistakes from a lot of different players. I think it might have to do with jet lag. And it was a very long day, since it was all played in one day.
I would agree with Dark. I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm just saying everyone played a little bit bad. I think very often, in general, people are going to play worse than at their full potential. But this was even a bit lower than I would expect.
How was Dark's Zerg vs Zerg? You've been a noted critic of Korean Zerg vs Zerg in the past.
I can't really remember all the games, but I don't think I was like.... I think he still played it a little bit like a clown?
I think one of the series before BlizzCon, it was a typical Korean ZvZ for me, which...
Dark vs soO in the group stage.
Like, I wasn't too impressed with their strategic decisions. It doesn't mean ... when I say this, I don't mean they're bad in ZvZ and I can beat them, because this is usually what people take away from this, for some reason. He obviously played better than Reynor.
They basically just play incorrect StarCraft very often, in ZvZ. For example, if you ling-bane all-in, that should never work at a higher level. This is not something where you can say "hey my micro is better than my opponent, I will out-micro him." That doesn't actually work. It's up to your opponent if you win or not. It's just up to your opponent if they make mistakes—that's just what they go for very often.
Still, that finals was pretty one-sided.
I can't really remember, it's already a couple months ago... I don't think there was a single normal Roach vs Roach game, which is usually what I see as a standard game. And then late game would be Hydra-Viper vs Hydra-Viper.
It was definitely very one-sided. Dark got decently far ahead in a lot of the games. I can't remember what he did to get so far ahead. I remember one of the games he would start randomly making lings at a certain juncture, and just attack. These are the kind of moves that I really don't respect.
Because they shouldn't work?
Because they shouldn't work, exactly. Your opponent can have way more Drones and still defend it. All the aggressive stuff, you can defend with a similar amount of Banelings, and then you have defenders advantage and Queens. So even if you don't make the lings, you can just make them later than your opponent—which means you already will have mined more—so you can just make way less and still defend, because Queens and Banelings are amazing defensively.
Maybe it's like one of those 'great Terran' things going all the way back to Brood War, where you feel like the proxy 2-rax is just a coinflip, but certain players succeed so often you figure they must know something we don't.
I don't think it's a coinflip, I don't think it has anything to do with luck. He just does stuff that's shit *laughs*.
It's straight up... he basically just hopes for his opponent's mistake. Obviously he has amazing execution and good macro behind it. That's why it works. But I don't think has anything to do with luck. I don't think his ZvZ was that solid as well. I believe he got destroyed by Rogue at some point before that, and he lost to Elazer in GSL vs the World. Those kinds of things don't always work.
I think you're making a pretty tough sell though, given how convincingly Dark won the BlizzCon finals.
I mean you're making me try to sell it in the one series where one guy played much better than the other one. And I'm talking about how it is stylistically. You're giving me a hard time just because of this one series. You can name me this one example, and I can show you Serral vs soO, which was also at BlizzCon. Which was exactly the same, where one guy just owned the other. Obviously it has much to do with which player is playing better.
I'm usually not arguing about how good the person is, that's where I think people get me wrong most of the time. I'm just saying the strategies are mostly not... not OPTIMAL. That's the thing I said in the last interview with you? And then people started showing my win-rates against Korean Zergs, which has nothing to do with my statement *laughs*.
Well, it's gonna happen again.
Fantastic, looking forward to it.
I think also one of the things that helped, in this case, is that this map pool—and right now, in general—is that Mutas are really good. I don't think that Mutas are actually a clown playstyle, I think Mutas are very legit. It's just bad against certain all-ins, you can't hold against certain all-ins. But for example, it's just an example that it's good, and I see it as a legit way of playing. I just think most of the Roach all-ins, the pre-Lair ones, are not good. And then the other things, just randomly attacking with ling-bane and super over-committing, not playing standard builds properly and starting +1 attack upgrades at 250+ gas most of the time—those are the things I don't respect.
But I know that Dark can also play legit ZvZ. I think if he would play it more often, he would be even scarier.
Progamer mindsets are a tricky thing...
How was 2019 for you?
My last year was pretty bad. It started out pretty good—I got like top eight WESG and I qualified for Katowice, I got top five in WCS EU: Winter. But then the three Circuit championships were really bad for me. And honestly, I feel like I lost a lot of motivation.
Because before my goal was to make it to BlizzCon. Making it to BlizzCon again was my goal last year, but I didn't want it as much as the year before. Because the year before, I wanted to prove myself, I wanted to be one of the best eight. But to go into the next year and ask yourself "Okay, I guess let's be somewhere around the top again," it doesn't really seem like... that big of a motivation, right? And I didn't really have hope to beat out Serral, which is the big one. I basically didn't have hopes of winning tournaments, and then I just hoped to be somewhere around the top, so that didn't do it for me. So overall, the last year went pretty poorly for me.
To be successful, you need to give yourself unrealistically high goals?
I'm not sure if it's that way for everyone, but for me, myself, I think I need to aim higher. That's just for me, that's how I motivate myself.
So that's something you're changing this year.
Yeah, and then also, a little bit of how I view the game, I will mix up my strategies a bit more. Last year I was just, against players I thought were worse than me especially, I would just play the same, purely reactive, super legit builds. And I got abused that way, so I think I'll get back to mixing it up a little bit more.
This question is kind of going back a long way, but how did it feel to get a map win with Swarm Hosts against TY at the 2018 Global Finals?
Not happy at all, not even a bit. I was extremely frustrated—I had never lost to a Marauder Hellion all-in, but I lost an earlier map because my Queens got baited out by a Viking. So I was pretty.... I was not happy. I don't care about map wins. I don't care about how I look in the game.
For example, Elazer sometimes tells me, "Well at least I got a good game in there." Like if he's down 0-2 vs Serral, I'd bet you that he'd play a standard macro game, and then he'll show for 20 minutes he's still a top level player that can keep up with Serral. But in the end, he's going to lose out. But if I'm down 0-2, and the series was only 10 minutes because I all-in'd Serral once and it didn't work, and Serral all-in'd me and completely owned me, if an all-in gave me the best chance in the third game, I would still show that all-in.
I also don't really care if I lose 2-3 or 0-3. Actually, 2-3 I like a little bit less, because I'm someone that—and this is one of the things I gotta fix—that thinks "what if I didn't make this one stupid mis-call?" One of the things that annoyed me a lot, was when I lost 2-3 against Serral at Montreal, where I threw the fifth game. That kind of stuff.
Wow, what an uplifting note to end on.
Alright, let's wrap up. Any final comments or shoutouts?
Thanks for doing the interview. Shoutouts to QLASH, as always.
Hope you can do one with Clem and his expecatiosn and also curious about Denver who showed some incredible games. And if you are doing Koreans, give that guy Zoun a chance
Great interview, fun to read the opinions of someone that actually has opinions
It comes through as being really genuine too which is refreshing.
Kind of funny how he calls out Dark for playing like a clown and then later goes on to say how not playing like a clown held him back and how he will try to play less optimally to get better result.
TL:DR Lambos defintion of playing optimally is different from playing in the way that gives you the highest chance of success.
His comments on ZvZ remind me of IdrA who thought there's only one way to play the game and if someone wins differently "he won because he did something dumb"
On February 15 2020 00:19 Charoisaur wrote: His comments on ZvZ remind me of IdrA who thought there's only one way to play the game and if someone wins differently "he won because he did something dumb"
i don't think so, he clearly says multiple times that when dark wins it's because he plays better.
i think it's more that he's a typical macro idealist player who thinks a proper player should successfully defend cheese almost every time, which makes sense as you need to become pretty bulletproof against cheese to rise through master and GM to pro level.
he's correct that there's an inherent aggressor's gamble in doing certain cheeses, it's true even on ladder for semicompetitive players. in zvp people ling flood the natural wall all the time on ladder because mostly everyone has bad defense below a certain MMR, so the wall crumbles and the game ends. but theoretically if you wall correctly it should be an autowin for P
so what he's getting at makes sense, he's just a little stubborn about the idea of "people shouldn't do this because it's unreliable," whereas a lot of people would rightly argue that calculated risk is part of competition
Lambo vision of how to play the game optimally reminds me of a Super Smash Bros Melee player "golden path" (IloD's Guide to Improvement for those interested).
It's also probably why his ultimate goal would be to beat Serral, and not Reynor, although Reynor had the best recent result at BlizzCon among foreigners ; since Serral almost always seek to play optimally, understanding what is thrown at him etc., whereas Reynor is a bit more raw / wild sometimes in his way to play the game (see Reynor vs PtitDrogo @ NationWars).
On February 15 2020 00:19 Charoisaur wrote: His comments on ZvZ remind me of IdrA who thought there's only one way to play the game and if someone wins differently "he won because he did something dumb"
i don't think so, he clearly says multiple times that when dark wins it's because he plays better.
i think it's more that he's a typical macro idealist player who thinks a proper player should successfully defend cheese almost every time, which makes sense as you need to become pretty bulletproof against cheese to rise through master and GM to pro level.
he's correct that there's an inherent aggressor's gamble in doing certain cheeses, it's true even on ladder for semicompetitive players. in zvp people ling flood the natural wall all the time on ladder because mostly everyone has bad defense below a certain MMR, so the wall crumbles and the game ends. but theoretically if you wall correctly it should be an autowin for P
so what he's getting at makes sense, he's just a little stubborn about the idea of "people shouldn't do this because it's unreliable," whereas a lot of people would rightly argue that calculated risk is part of competition
I think a few to many players hang to the idea that they need to have the overall highest winrate to be successfull, while it's not really about winning most of your game but about winning a very limited and particular set of games. Of course if you can play like Serral go for it, but I don't think a 30-40% ladder build is necessarely bad to do if you think it's appropriate at that particular moment. I mean there's a reason sOs is a 3 time world champ despite having fairly low winrate for a top player.
On February 15 2020 00:19 Charoisaur wrote: His comments on ZvZ remind me of IdrA who thought there's only one way to play the game and if someone wins differently "he won because he did something dumb"
i don't think so, he clearly says multiple times that when dark wins it's because he plays better.
i think it's more that he's a typical macro idealist player who thinks a proper player should successfully defend cheese almost every time, which makes sense as you need to become pretty bulletproof against cheese to rise through master and GM to pro level.
he's correct that there's an inherent aggressor's gamble in doing certain cheeses, it's true even on ladder for semicompetitive players. in zvp people ling flood the natural wall all the time on ladder because mostly everyone has bad defense below a certain MMR, so the wall crumbles and the game ends. but theoretically if you wall correctly it should be an autowin for P
so what he's getting at makes sense, he's just a little stubborn about the idea of "people shouldn't do this because it's unreliable," whereas a lot of people would rightly argue that calculated risk is part of competition
I think a few to many players hang to the idea that they need to have the overall highest winrate to be successfull, while it's not really about winning most of your game but about winning a very limited and particular set of games. Of course if you can play like Serral go for it, but I don't think a 30-40% ladder build is necessarely bad to do if you think it's appropriate at that particular moment. I mean there's a reason sOs is a 3 time world champ despite having fairly low winrate for a top player.
And that's why sOs crushed Maru at BlizzCon 2018 sadly
Realy great interview. You just have to love Lambo for the honesty. I hope he s going to perform better than he did last year. Can t wait for more interviews to come
On February 15 2020 01:54 Nakajin wrote: I mean there's a reason sOs is a 3 time world champ despite having fairly low winrate for a top player.
I mean, sOs' winrates in HotS when he won his world championships were actually insane. His offline winrates for HotS overall match Inno and exceed guys like soO and Zest by a distance. His fall from grace since LotV came out is pretty drastic.
On February 15 2020 01:54 Nakajin wrote: I mean there's a reason sOs is a 3 time world champ despite having fairly low winrate for a top player.
I mean, sOs' winrates in HotS when he won his world championships were actually insane. His offline winrates for HotS overall match Inno and exceed guys like soO and Zest by a distance. His fall from grace since LotV came out is pretty drastic.
I like Lambo for his honesty and his analytical view on the game. It's very nice to catch him co-casting games on big tournaments. Thanks for the interview.
It's a bit funny that Lambo mocks others for not playing standard then at the end admits that he is predictable and often punished for playing defensive/reactive standard.
On February 15 2020 00:19 Charoisaur wrote: His comments on ZvZ remind me of IdrA who thought there's only one way to play the game and if someone wins differently "he won because he did something dumb"
Then you don't understand what he is saying. Lambo thinks eu zvz or let's say the standart approach is the best way to win games and he based its raisonning on Serral's success (+Elazer and other eu against korean this year). It's more like "he won despite doing something dumb". You can disagree for sure but it's already another subject. Idra had a different approach, it was more like "the ones who are winning with all in abuse the shitty design/balance of the game".
Part of what makes Dark so dangerous is the fact that he can go full baboon and make it work, but I do think he overdoes this concept a lot. For example, his ling bane build in ZvP is the epitome of "this is extremely shit but if i catch you off guard, you might die". His game vs Stats on Triton in Super Tournament 2 was a great example. Stats had literally everything available to hold the build despite not seeing it at all, and if he defended even remotely better, he is so far ahead. But then he moves in his army in the worse position for a secret and just insta loses a game where he had all the opportunities to win. Dark had zero control over this situation, he played it well but at the end of the day, he's banking on Stats making a mistake or a misread. It's a weird way to play sc2 when you give your opponent the ability to win the game and hope they can't take those opportunities.
Obviously, you should always do that to at least some extent to mix it up but I do think Dark takes it too far and goes for like extremely bad builds sometimes, rather than just standard aggression. Ofc, that does make him more unpredictable overall and in general, I'm always happy to see more stylistic differences between players of the same race. But it does feel like Dark has the potential to be way stronger than he is already if he cleaned up his repertoire of gimmicks.
On February 15 2020 06:08 blooblooblahblah wrote: Part of what makes Dark so dangerous is the fact that he can go full baboon and make it work, but I do think he overdoes this concept a lot. For example, his ling bane build in ZvP is the epitome of "this is extremely shit but if i catch you off guard, you might die". His game vs Stats on Triton in Super Tournament 2 was a great example. Stats had literally everything available to hold the build despite not seeing it at all, and if he defended even remotely better, he is so far ahead. But then he moves in his army in the worse position for a secret and just insta loses a game where he had all the opportunities to win. Dark had zero control over this situation, he played it well but at the end of the day, he's banking on Stats making a mistake or a misread. It's a weird way to play sc2 when you give your opponent the ability to win the game and hope they can't take those opportunities.
Obviously, you should always do that to at least some extent to mix it up but I do think Dark takes it too far and goes for like extremely bad builds sometimes, rather than just standard aggression. Ofc, that does make him more unpredictable overall and in general, I'm always happy to see more stylistic differences between players of the same race. But it does feel like Dark has the potential to be way stronger than he is already if he cleaned up his repertoire of gimmicks.
In a game without full knowledge it's actually pretty common - prime examples are hidden buildings or cheese builds. All it takes is to scout it and then it's easy to defend. You bet the game on the fact the opponent won't realise what build it is and/or scout it.
Dark(and for example sOs) are good at selling builds and winning via poker face.
It's the best way to play, IMO. Because if your opponent cannot tell what you're doing unless they're scouting the whole map furiously, then they're in a natural disadvantage, especially if they want to play the passive one.
I hate ZvZ and have no idea about the games, but from my view Dark has the better approach to the game. It's what killed IdrA and it's what was keeping Rain from having more titles until he learned that predictability is bad.
On February 15 2020 06:08 blooblooblahblah wrote: Dark had zero control over this situation, he played it well but at the end of the day, he's banking on Stats making a mistake or a misread. It's a weird way to play sc2 when you give your opponent the ability to win the game and hope they can't take those opportunities.
I disagree partly with this sentiment, it is actually a very standard way to play starcraft 2. Makings plays or builds that doesn't work if your opponent plays perfectly, this can be said about basically any build and any attack/harassment. BEcause the game is balanced around there being ways to defend or counter everything, there is the choice to simply macro to your perfect end game army but that rarely happens.
2 base push, doesn't work if you opponent scouts perfectly and defends. Orace/banshee/DT/and-so-on puts you behind if the opponent scouts and reacts perfectly.
As you play starcraft 2 you will always make mistakes and any play you make reliies in some way on you opponent making a mistake to be successful unless you are already far enough ahead to win on pure supply/tech advantage.
Another dimension I feel we talk too little about is how the way you play in one series effects your next series. Dark playing the way he plays puts fear into any future opponent making them more prone to play more defensive simply because of the bold plays Dark does. Win or lose this series, the next time Dark plays he will already have an advantage that players like Lambo lacks.
I definitely don't agree with everything Lambo says, but I do appreciate that he's actually willing to come forward and say it. Much better than super bland and noncommittal answers that sound like a politician's interview.
I mean, the worst part of Blizzard, the way they handled the WCS Circuit was that they announced everything super late. Before, it was basically impossible to plan a year. You couldn't plan any vacations because they would announce Challenger way too late, that kind of stuff. I can now ask Apollo when the qualifiers are, and he's probably going to have an answer for me, you know? I absolutely could ask [Blizzard people] before, but they usually wouldn't have an answer until very late.
Did I miss the GSL announcement? I get that the c-virus is the most important thing in Asia right now, but even announcement - 3 tournaments are planned if the situation allows them would be a real treat now. Like... how late this can be announced?
On February 15 2020 01:33 Poopi wrote: Lambo vision of how to play the game optimally reminds me of a Super Smash Bros Melee player "golden path" (IloD's Guide to Improvement for those interested).
It's also probably why his ultimate goal would be to beat Serral, and not Reynor, although Reynor had the best recent result at BlizzCon among foreigners ; since Serral almost always seek to play optimally, understanding what is thrown at him etc., whereas Reynor is a bit more raw / wild sometimes in his way to play the game (see Reynor vs PtitDrogo @ NationWars).
You forget that Serral, after losing a single series at BlizzCon, defeated Reynor on his way to HSC and Nation Wars titles. Lambo wants to beat Serral because Serral won much more and dominated much harder than Reynor; Serral is still the king, despite Reynor's rise in 2019.
Maru lost to sOs because he was too stubborn, sticking to proxies against the guy who probably helped him develop those builds, while he have easily won a more standard game being by far the superior player.
I liked this piece, overall I agree with Lambo. I would bet that at least some of those who can't stand Lambo because he openly gives voice to his opinions greatly appreciate similar attitudes in certain other players.
On February 15 2020 01:33 Poopi wrote: Lambo vision of how to play the game optimally reminds me of a Super Smash Bros Melee player "golden path" (IloD's Guide to Improvement for those interested).
It's also probably why his ultimate goal would be to beat Serral, and not Reynor, although Reynor had the best recent result at BlizzCon among foreigners ; since Serral almost always seek to play optimally, understanding what is thrown at him etc., whereas Reynor is a bit more raw / wild sometimes in his way to play the game (see Reynor vs PtitDrogo @ NationWars).
You forget that Serral, after losing a single series at BlizzCon, defeated Reynor on his way to HSC and Nation Wars titles. Lambo wants to beat Serral because Serral won much more and dominated much harder than Reynor; Serral is still the king, despite Reynor's rise in 2019.
Maru lost to sOs because he was too stubborn, sticking to proxies against the guy who probably helped him develop those builds, while he have easily won a more standard game being by far the superior player.
? Even when TvP wasn't as hard as in late 2018, Maru vs sOs was close. Being the superior player wouldn't allow Maru for an easy win in macrogames, TvP was horrible outside of proxies.
I still stand that Lambo probably prefers Serral stylistically compared to Reynor.
I mean, the worst part of Blizzard, the way they handled the WCS Circuit was that they announced everything super late. Before, it was basically impossible to plan a year. You couldn't plan any vacations because they would announce Challenger way too late, that kind of stuff. I can now ask Apollo when the qualifiers are, and he's probably going to have an answer for me, you know? I absolutely could ask [Blizzard people] before, but they usually wouldn't have an answer until very late.
Did I miss the GSL announcement? I get that the c-virus is the most important thing in Asia right now, but even announcement - 3 tournaments are planned if the situation allows them would be a real treat now. Like... how late this can be announced?
(if I missed it, then excuse my stupidity)
There hasn't been any real announcement, but the afreeca TL account confirmed they are happening, with a bit of luck the korean pros know the detail. Also I remember someone (I don't remember who so don't take it to seriously) saying that a lot of Koreans weren't really aware of the ESL open cup happening, not sure the communication has been great on that part.
I hope something comes along soon for Korea, especially since we aren't hearing anything from the CTC and who knows how WESG is gonna happen at this point.
On February 15 2020 01:33 Poopi wrote: Lambo vision of how to play the game optimally reminds me of a Super Smash Bros Melee player "golden path" (IloD's Guide to Improvement for those interested).
It's also probably why his ultimate goal would be to beat Serral, and not Reynor, although Reynor had the best recent result at BlizzCon among foreigners ; since Serral almost always seek to play optimally, understanding what is thrown at him etc., whereas Reynor is a bit more raw / wild sometimes in his way to play the game (see Reynor vs PtitDrogo @ NationWars).
You forget that Serral, after losing a single series at BlizzCon, defeated Reynor on his way to HSC and Nation Wars titles. Lambo wants to beat Serral because Serral won much more and dominated much harder than Reynor; Serral is still the king, despite Reynor's rise in 2019.
Maru lost to sOs because he was too stubborn, sticking to proxies against the guy who probably helped him develop those builds, while he have easily won a more standard game being by far the superior player.
? Even when TvP wasn't as hard as in late 2018, Maru vs sOs was close. Being the superior player wouldn't allow Maru for an easy win in macrogames, TvP was horrible outside of proxies.
I still stand that Lambo probably prefers Serral stylistically compared to Reynor.
Maru would have steamrolled sOs if he made smarter choices and didn't tilt(getting supply blocked in g3 that way...), I don't remember you addressing TvP as a "horrible matchup" in the introductory article you wrote about BlizzCon 2018.
Lambo's style is definitely more akin to Serral's, but that's not why he wants to beat Serral.
"Like, I wasn't too impressed with their strategic decisions. It doesn't mean ... when I say this, I don't mean they're [Korean Zergs] bad in ZvZ and I can beat them"
I am always happy when players are being open and state their opinions publicly without any constraints or fear of slack. That being said I dont like Lambos line of thoughts, its too messy and illogical.
I like Lambo for his bold statements. He may be wrong, he may be right. But at least he himself is convinced he's right, no nuances. I would call it confident rather then arrogant.
Unlike IdrA he does not try to blame his loses on the state of the game. His calling out the Korean Zergs on a sub-optimal gameplan is a direct consequence of the fact that it's a competitive game. Players are bound to have contrasting opinions on the best way to play. And that in turn gives us entertaining games.
I don't understand the flack he receives for voicing his opinion. If players were only allowed to voice their opinion if they could back it up by winning every game, it would be pretty quiet in these forums.
Great Interview, thanks for that. I like when players state their opinions openly and I would love to have more Interviews where players do so. That´s why i don´t understand people coming to a forum and call them arrogant or anything just because he has another opinion than them. It is actually possible to not agree with someone and still be respectful.
Like others here I, too, think that Darks unpredictability is something that makes him fearful and that makes it very hard to plan a series against him. Even if the things he does are bad from a players point of view, he makes it win, and that is what matters. Players like Lambo or Heromarine for example tend to say that their opponents are bad or play like shit if they do something unlogic, and they maybe right, but still they lose to things like that. And while i love both as players, I think they would boost their play if they started to be less predictable, even if Dark is overdoing it sometimes, it made him successful last year (but it made him also lose too often in the years before). In 2018 you could see that Serral understood there needs to be some unpredicability in his game if he wants to be the best and from then on he started to mix in all-ins in his series, and i believe that was an important thing that made him even scarier to play.
Dark uses every unit in the zerg arsenal, he has super mechanics and unpredictable strategys. Lambo should learn a lot from him. But in the end it comes down to talent.
On February 16 2020 17:51 Shathe wrote: Dark uses every unit in the zerg arsenal, he has super mechanics and unpredictable strategys. Lambo should learn a lot from him
On February 16 2020 17:51 Shathe wrote: Dark uses every unit in the zerg arsenal, he has super mechanics and unpredictable strategys. Lambo should learn a lot from him. But in the end it comes down to talent.
It s realy not that simple. Talent is quite a big factor in SC2 like in any other sports. But not the only one and probably not even the biggest one. Dark is defnatly more than just raw talent.
On February 16 2020 17:51 Shathe wrote: Dark uses every unit in the zerg arsenal, he has super mechanics and unpredictable strategys. Lambo should learn a lot from him. But in the end it comes down to talent.
It s realy not that simple. Talent is quite a big factor in SC2 like in any other sports. But not the only one and probably not even the biggest one. Dark is defnatly more than just raw talent.
Dark is a stronger player than Lambo, that's for sure. However, Lambo criticizes the way Dark plays ZvZ, not his overall playstyle; rightfully so, considering that Dark's victory over Reynor is the only truly impactful ZvZ he has won, as opposed to multiple failures(only in 2019: WESG against Serral, GSL vs the World vs Elazer, Code S S3 against Rogue).
On February 15 2020 06:08 blooblooblahblah wrote: Dark had zero control over this situation, he played it well but at the end of the day, he's banking on Stats making a mistake or a misread. It's a weird way to play sc2 when you give your opponent the ability to win the game and hope they can't take those opportunities.
I disagree partly with this sentiment, it is actually a very standard way to play starcraft 2. Makings plays or builds that doesn't work if your opponent plays perfectly, this can be said about basically any build and any attack/harassment. BEcause the game is balanced around there being ways to defend or counter everything, there is the choice to simply macro to your perfect end game army but that rarely happens.
2 base push, doesn't work if you opponent scouts perfectly and defends. Orace/banshee/DT/and-so-on puts you behind if the opponent scouts and reacts perfectly.
As you play starcraft 2 you will always make mistakes and any play you make reliies in some way on you opponent making a mistake to be successful unless you are already far enough ahead to win on pure supply/tech advantage.
Another dimension I feel we talk too little about is how the way you play in one series effects your next series. Dark playing the way he plays puts fear into any future opponent making them more prone to play more defensive simply because of the bold plays Dark does. Win or lose this series, the next time Dark plays he will already have an advantage that players like Lambo lacks.
Standard way to play sc2, ofc. What I'm trying to say is I think Dark overdoes it when he starts using genuinely bad builds with the hope of the opponent screwing up. I mentioned the Stats game because Stats literally saw nothing and had no idea what was happening, and yet he still could've held it easily if he didn't literally move all his sentries out into the open at the exact same time Dark attacked with the ling bane. This was not a "if Stats plays perfectly, Dark is behind". It's more of a "Dark can only win in this situation if Stats screws up majorly, and Stats is not a guy that often screws up that bad". I understand there's a merit to having range and giving the opponent the knowledge that you can do these "bad builds" but I'm not alone in thinking Dark can take it too far sometimes and give too much power to your opponent to win the game with any decent play, considering how good he is.
I'm a big fan of Dark's playstyle in general and any sort of play style that puts pressure on your opponent and forces reactive play. I just think he can weed out some of the truly awful builds and mix in more predictable, but higher percentage aggression. In reality, I just really hate that ZvP ling bane build, it really is soooo bad.
Lambo went over this thread in his stream yesterday. The two Major things he adressed were: 1. He was suprised, that we re having a discussion here and Don t just write "what an idiot" and Flame around. So I gues that s a Plus, that we re a less toxic comunity than he expected :D 2. He said, that people misunderstand him. When he says, that Koreans play bad he doesn t mean all ins or taking risks. He means builds that aren t optimal, like building evo chambers to late (like 5-10seconds for no reason), so they re behind in upgrades or an Ling attack that could have hit 5s earlier or trying to move a spine down a ramp, that is blocked with 2 queens. He says these obvious mistakes, that are easily fixable are the reason why the Koreans can lose to mechanical inferior Players quote easily. Those are mistakes that could make the difference between low- mid gm and pro Player between similar execution and are way to comon in kr zvz.
On February 17 2020 15:41 dbRic1203 wrote: Lambo went over this thread in his stream yesterday. The two Major things he adressed were: 1. He was suprised, that we re having a discussion here and Don t just write "what an idiot" and Flame around. So I gues that s a Plus, that we re a less toxic comunity than he expected :D 2. He said, that people misunderstand him. When he says, that Koreans play bad he doesn t mean all ins or taking risks. He means builds that aren t optimal, like building evo chambers to late (like 5-10seconds for no reason), so they re behind in upgrades or an Ling attack that could have hit 5s earlier or trying to move a spine down a ramp, that is blocked with 2 queens. He says these obvious mistakes, that are easily fixable are the reason why the Koreans can lose to mechanical inferior Players quote easily. Those are mistakes that could make the difference between low- mid gm and pro Player between similar execution and are way to comon in kr zvz.
Its fun to hear his reactions but this seems like bullshit?
They basically just play incorrect StarCraft very often, in ZvZ. For example, if you ling-bane all-in, that should never work at a higher level. This is not something where you can say "hey my micro is better than my opponent, I will out-micro him." That doesn't actually work. It's up to your opponent if you win or not. It's just up to your opponent if they make mistakes—that's just what they go for very often.
So he says they play incorrect starcraft 2 because of the strategic build they choose. Note how he generalize and say ling-bane all ins should never work. He doesn't even specify a particular build just in general if you do any ling-bane allin you play starcraft 2 wrong.
Somehow we misundertood him and what he meant was that korean zergs often makes mistakes and therefore they are bad at zvz?
I just don't understand how his mind works, first he says they are play the game strategically wrong and then he turns around and says that they play strategically good but make too many mistakes. So which is it, is korean zergs strategically good but often makes mistakes or are they strategically poor and for example builds evo chambers late on purpose or make a time attack late on purpose as a strategic decisions? The things Lambo points out seems to be obvious mistakes (he even calls it that himself according to you) that the koreans probably know themselves as mistakes seconds after making them and not purposeful strategic choices.
Edit: I mean if you Believe koreans makes simple mistakes too often, more often than foreign zergs I guess that could be correct but wouldn't that likely be a result of superior mechanics? I mean the more you focus on macro and multitask the more likely you will be to make mistakes, so the question is what is more important? To play slower but more meticulous and not make mistakes like Lambo says or play faster with stronger mechanics but be more prone to mistakes?
On February 17 2020 15:41 dbRic1203 wrote: Lambo went over this thread in his stream yesterday. The two Major things he adressed were: 1. He was suprised, that we re having a discussion here and Don t just write "what an idiot" and Flame around. So I gues that s a Plus, that we re a less toxic comunity than he expected :D 2. He said, that people misunderstand him. When he says, that Koreans play bad he doesn t mean all ins or taking risks. He means builds that aren t optimal, like building evo chambers to late (like 5-10seconds for no reason), so they re behind in upgrades or an Ling attack that could have hit 5s earlier or trying to move a spine down a ramp, that is blocked with 2 queens. He says these obvious mistakes, that are easily fixable are the reason why the Koreans can lose to mechanical inferior Players quote easily. Those are mistakes that could make the difference between low- mid gm and pro Player between similar execution and are way to comon in kr zvz.
Its fun to hear his reactions but this seems like bullshit?
They basically just play incorrect StarCraft very often, in ZvZ. For example, if you ling-bane all-in, that should never work at a higher level. This is not something where you can say "hey my micro is better than my opponent, I will out-micro him." That doesn't actually work. It's up to your opponent if you win or not. It's just up to your opponent if they make mistakes—that's just what they go for very often.
So he says they play incorrect starcraft 2 because of the strategic build they choose. Note how he generalize and say ling-bane all ins should never work. He doesn't even specify a particular build just in general if you do any ling-bane allin you play starcraft 2 wrong.
Somehow we misundertood him and what he meant was that korean zergs often makes mistakes and therefore they are bad at zvz?
I just don't understand how his mind works, first he says they are play the game strategically wrong and then he turns around and says that they play strategically good but make too many mistakes. So which is it, is korean zergs strategically good but often makes mistakes or are they strategically poor and for example builds evo chambers late on purpose or make a time attack late on purpose as a strategic decisions? The things Lambo points out seems to be obvious mistakes (he even calls it that himself according to you) that the koreans probably know themselves as mistakes seconds after making them and not purposeful strategic choices.
Edit: I mean if you Believe koreans makes simple mistakes too often, more often than foreign zergs I guess that could be correct but wouldn't that likely be a result of superior mechanics? I mean the more you focus on macro and multitask the more likely you will be to make mistakes, so the question is what is more important? To play slower but more meticulous and not make mistakes like Lambo says or play faster with stronger mechanics but be more prone to mistakes?
It sounds quite baffling to me. His interview makes some sense to me but the stuff others have paraphrased from other sources like his Twitch really muddy the waters.
If he’s, as I think he has, been saying that Koreans general ZvZ strategical style/approach isn’t as good as the Euros, but they’re superior mechanically so they have generally prospered that makes sense. Then Serral comes along who’s using the ‘superior style’ but also has the mechanics and has a great record.
On February 17 2020 15:41 dbRic1203 wrote: Lambo went over this thread in his stream yesterday. The two Major things he adressed were: 1. He was suprised, that we re having a discussion here and Don t just write "what an idiot" and Flame around. So I gues that s a Plus, that we re a less toxic comunity than he expected :D 2. He said, that people misunderstand him. When he says, that Koreans play bad he doesn t mean all ins or taking risks. He means builds that aren t optimal, like building evo chambers to late (like 5-10seconds for no reason), so they re behind in upgrades or an Ling attack that could have hit 5s earlier or trying to move a spine down a ramp, that is blocked with 2 queens. He says these obvious mistakes, that are easily fixable are the reason why the Koreans can lose to mechanical inferior Players quote easily. Those are mistakes that could make the difference between low- mid gm and pro Player between similar execution and are way to comon in kr zvz.
Its fun to hear his reactions but this seems like bullshit?
They basically just play incorrect StarCraft very often, in ZvZ. For example, if you ling-bane all-in, that should never work at a higher level. This is not something where you can say "hey my micro is better than my opponent, I will out-micro him." That doesn't actually work. It's up to your opponent if you win or not. It's just up to your opponent if they make mistakes—that's just what they go for very often.
So he says they play incorrect starcraft 2 because of the strategic build they choose. Note how he generalize and say ling-bane all ins should never work. He doesn't even specify a particular build just in general if you do any ling-bane allin you play starcraft 2 wrong.
Sorry, my summary of his words was probably a bit unaccurate, I try to expalain it again. He isn t critising them for taking echambers to late, because of mistakes (to stick to that example) but for taking them to late every single time and always starting their +1 with over 100Gas floating. He critzies KR Zerg for not streamlining their builds. He says, that he tries to learn from them by analyzing their replays and does it A LOT. But he just sees inferior builds with better mechanics.
On February 17 2020 15:41 dbRic1203 wrote: Lambo went over this thread in his stream yesterday. The two Major things he adressed were: 1. He was suprised, that we re having a discussion here and Don t just write "what an idiot" and Flame around. So I gues that s a Plus, that we re a less toxic comunity than he expected :D 2. He said, that people misunderstand him. When he says, that Koreans play bad he doesn t mean all ins or taking risks. He means builds that aren t optimal, like building evo chambers to late (like 5-10seconds for no reason), so they re behind in upgrades or an Ling attack that could have hit 5s earlier or trying to move a spine down a ramp, that is blocked with 2 queens. He says these obvious mistakes, that are easily fixable are the reason why the Koreans can lose to mechanical inferior Players quote easily. Those are mistakes that could make the difference between low- mid gm and pro Player between similar execution and are way to comon in kr zvz.
i don't completely buy what he's saying there. for one thing, one of his own examples was dark "making a bunch of lings and just attacking" at weird times in zvz where he said the defender has the advantage. if that's not talking about risky all-in builds then i don't know what it is.
as for things like building "late evos", maybe he's right, but maybe if you asked a kr player about it they would have a reason for preferring their own build. i'd have to hear from both sides before taking one person's analysis as fact. i respect lambo as a player, but i also respect other pros enough to hear their arguments too
I mean, the worst part of Blizzard, the way they handled the WCS Circuit was that they announced everything super late. Before, it was basically impossible to plan a year. You couldn't plan any vacations because they would announce Challenger way too late, that kind of stuff. I can now ask Apollo when the qualifiers are, and he's probably going to have an answer for me, you know? I absolutely could ask [Blizzard people] before, but they usually wouldn't have an answer until very late.
Did I miss the GSL announcement? I get that the c-virus is the most important thing in Asia right now, but even announcement - 3 tournaments are planned if the situation allows them would be a real treat now. Like... how late this can be announced?
(if I missed it, then excuse my stupidity)
There hasn't been any real announcement, but the afreeca TL account confirmed they are happening, with a bit of luck the korean pros know the detail. Also I remember someone (I don't remember who so don't take it to seriously) saying that a lot of Koreans weren't really aware of the ESL open cup happening, not sure the communication has been great on that part.
I hope something comes along soon for Korea, especially since we aren't hearing anything from the CTC and who knows how WESG is gonna happen at this point.
I know, it's just that at this time it's probably the longest waiting time for the announcement of the GSL while Lambo is saying that under the new management it's way faster than before Just a nab at that.
On February 17 2020 15:41 dbRic1203 wrote: Lambo went over this thread in his stream yesterday. The two Major things he adressed were: 1. He was suprised, that we re having a discussion here and Don t just write "what an idiot" and Flame around. So I gues that s a Plus, that we re a less toxic comunity than he expected :D 2. He said, that people misunderstand him. When he says, that Koreans play bad he doesn t mean all ins or taking risks. He means builds that aren t optimal, like building evo chambers to late (like 5-10seconds for no reason), so they re behind in upgrades or an Ling attack that could have hit 5s earlier or trying to move a spine down a ramp, that is blocked with 2 queens. He says these obvious mistakes, that are easily fixable are the reason why the Koreans can lose to mechanical inferior Players quote easily. Those are mistakes that could make the difference between low- mid gm and pro Player between similar execution and are way to comon in kr zvz.
Its fun to hear his reactions but this seems like bullshit?
They basically just play incorrect StarCraft very often, in ZvZ. For example, if you ling-bane all-in, that should never work at a higher level. This is not something where you can say "hey my micro is better than my opponent, I will out-micro him." That doesn't actually work. It's up to your opponent if you win or not. It's just up to your opponent if they make mistakes—that's just what they go for very often.
So he says they play incorrect starcraft 2 because of the strategic build they choose. Note how he generalize and say ling-bane all ins should never work. He doesn't even specify a particular build just in general if you do any ling-bane allin you play starcraft 2 wrong.
Somehow we misundertood him and what he meant was that korean zergs often makes mistakes and therefore they are bad at zvz?
I just don't understand how his mind works, first he says they are play the game strategically wrong and then he turns around and says that they play strategically good but make too many mistakes. So which is it, is korean zergs strategically good but often makes mistakes or are they strategically poor and for example builds evo chambers late on purpose or make a time attack late on purpose as a strategic decisions? The things Lambo points out seems to be obvious mistakes (he even calls it that himself according to you) that the koreans probably know themselves as mistakes seconds after making them and not purposeful strategic choices.
Edit: I mean if you Believe koreans makes simple mistakes too often, more often than foreign zergs I guess that could be correct but wouldn't that likely be a result of superior mechanics? I mean the more you focus on macro and multitask the more likely you will be to make mistakes, so the question is what is more important? To play slower but more meticulous and not make mistakes like Lambo says or play faster with stronger mechanics but be more prone to mistakes?
That's back to the discussion about economics and speed of the game.
Currently we're on the mechanics side, what Lambo says may be correct(I really don't know), Koreans may play strategically worse, but because LotV changes made strategic choices less impactful and mechanics more, it doesn't matter that much. Dark is mechanically so much stronger than Lambo that Lambo playing the right way doesn't matter as he will be picked apart by the pure mechanics. It's not a new thing, many foreigner v Koreans games can be summed by Koreans beating foreigners with their supperior mechanics. There are moments in SC2 where mechanics doesn't matter(e.g. if you don't have detection and DTs arrive) but in many situations mechanics solve the issue. It's similar to the Destiny's "Queens to master" series(or w/e it was called).
I mean, the worst part of Blizzard, the way they handled the WCS Circuit was that they announced everything super late. Before, it was basically impossible to plan a year. You couldn't plan any vacations because they would announce Challenger way too late, that kind of stuff. I can now ask Apollo when the qualifiers are, and he's probably going to have an answer for me, you know? I absolutely could ask [Blizzard people] before, but they usually wouldn't have an answer until very late.
Did I miss the GSL announcement? I get that the c-virus is the most important thing in Asia right now, but even announcement - 3 tournaments are planned if the situation allows them would be a real treat now. Like... how late this can be announced?
(if I missed it, then excuse my stupidity)
There hasn't been any real announcement, but the afreeca TL account confirmed they are happening, with a bit of luck the korean pros know the detail. Also I remember someone (I don't remember who so don't take it to seriously) saying that a lot of Koreans weren't really aware of the ESL open cup happening, not sure the communication has been great on that part.
I hope something comes along soon for Korea, especially since we aren't hearing anything from the CTC and who knows how WESG is gonna happen at this point.
I know, it's just that at this time it's probably the longest waiting time for the announcement of the GSL while Lambo is saying that under the new management it's way faster than before Just a nab at that.
The "new management" doesn't do the GSL arrangements, those are still in Blizzard's hand until things are finalized.
On February 15 2020 01:54 Nakajin wrote: I mean there's a reason sOs is a 3 time world champ despite having fairly low winrate for a top player.
I mean, sOs' winrates in HotS when he won his world championships were actually insane. His offline winrates for HotS overall match Inno and exceed guys like soO and Zest by a distance. His fall from grace since LotV came out is pretty drastic.
I think all those Proleague matches with very specific prep is the main reason
On February 15 2020 01:54 Nakajin wrote: I mean there's a reason sOs is a 3 time world champ despite having fairly low winrate for a top player.
I mean, sOs' winrates in HotS when he won his world championships were actually insane. His offline winrates for HotS overall match Inno and exceed guys like soO and Zest by a distance. His fall from grace since LotV came out is pretty drastic.
I think all those Proleague matches with very specific prep is the main reason
Well, almost all the top players were in the proleague, so it affects everyone
Great interview. Nice to have Lambo voice an opinion about difference between korean and foreign ZvZ. Has there been before some other situation where players would openly dispute the style that other community plays? Especially foreigners disputing korean meta.
If you choose to play aggressive strategies and play against them often, then you should be able to execute those strategies and responses near to optimal. Mistakes like wrong timings and reactions should not happen that often. If you delay an all-in 10s often then there should be some clear reason for it instead of being just a mistake. These mistakes should also cost you more when they happen often and people know that you are likely to play such strategies. Also, shorter games with more streamlined builds should not have much time for mistakes to happen or be forced. Not punishing these mistakes is on the opponent, but choosing to play these strategies and executing them without polishing them to "perfect" is at least an odd choice.
Of course this is just another player perceiving other player choices from replays and VODs and there could be reasons that are not being discussed between players. Could be cool to have an interview from Dark now and have him comment about the perceived mistakes, but that could probably need to have both Lambo and Dark analysing a game at same time.
I understand Lambo's view on unoptimal ZvZ play, but actually it might be a good strategy for the superior zerg to go bane/ling all-in, if you take into account of other factors, such as fatigue and game length.
What Lambo is doing, is what sOO was talking about...
Because SERRAL is dominant, he somehow thinks it applies to HIMSELF as well... like he has a right to call Korean Zergs bad, because these OTHER players beat them, even though he himself cant....
He sounds like a pro player version of the people who lose to cheese or bad builds on ladder, then flame you for being " BAD", even though they just got owned.....
Guys are right, he sounds like Idra.....
I will give him credit though, his casting at Asus was among the best I've ever heard.....
But come on, hes not even as good as Scarlett, lol
All taken into account, he can't be completely wrong:
I mean, looking at Serrals ZvZ history vs Korean Zergs. Either Serrals mechanics are even better or he plays the game more optimal. My bet is on the latter
If you've watched Lambo analyse Korean ZvZs, a lot of his criticisms come from unoptimised play rather than just "Koreans all in too much". For example, he would question why Impact would morph 4 defensive banelings in a situation that he scouted which would never have required those extra 2 banes which is a huge gas commitment. It often seems that Koreans (and this isn't exclusive to koreans) can sometimes gloss over refining the details of their ZvZ builds for optimal play, which is understandable considering it has been a fairly uncommon matchup in recent years in Korea (and on the flip side, it's extremely common in Europe). Obviously, Koreans are more aggressive in ZvZ (+tend to use riskier builds) but it's not like every Europe ZvZ is an economical game.
It reminds me of when Parting was able to get into a terran's base at HSC and was able to see just the one gas that basically guarantees a 3CC, yet when they asked him about it he paid no mind to it and basically said he doesn't know terran builds lol (and the casters went on to question why he didn't play greedy or go for double forge when he "knew" it was 3CC). Not completely relevant to the ZvZ thing but it was a funny moment when you realise that even our pro players aren't playing extremely nuanced a lot of the time. I'm sure Parting could've identified it as a 3CC build if he was just observing the game but it goes to show that when you're in-game, even the pros can do things that are "objectively" not optimal.
Anyone at Lambo's level could analyse any zerg's game and pick out many "objective inefficiencies" in their play. That isn't him suggesting he's better than them or even that he could beat them. If that's what you take out of this interview, then you should probably drink some tea. As long as it's not personal attacks, it's refreshing to see open criticism/discussion of the best players . It's healthy for the growth of the overall skill level of sc2 if people aren't so blindly ignorant to the flaws that can constantly occur in high lvl sc2, especially since our casters aren't quite high enough level to be able to point them out themselves to the viewers, in every matchup.
On February 18 2020 15:53 Harris1st wrote: All taken into account, he can't be completely wrong:
I mean, looking at Serrals ZvZ history vs Korean Zergs. Either Serrals mechanics are even better or he plays the game more optimal. My bet is on the latter
He has more ZvZ practice in the end, so if you level mechanics then the strategic layer/refinement is more important.
On February 18 2020 15:53 Harris1st wrote: All taken into account, he can't be completely wrong:
I mean, looking at Serrals ZvZ history vs Korean Zergs. Either Serrals mechanics are even better or he plays the game more optimal. My bet is on the latter
He has more ZvZ practice in the end, so if you level mechanics then the strategic layer/refinement is more important.
Did did did you ... just agree with me?!?
Or did I read your post wrong? I must have gotten something wrong!
On February 18 2020 16:34 blooblooblahblah wrote: If you've watched Lambo analyse Korean ZvZs, a lot of his criticisms come from unoptimised play rather than just "Koreans all in too much". For example, he would question why Impact would morph 4 defensive banelings in a situation that he scouted which would never have required those extra 2 banes which is a huge gas commitment. It often seems that Koreans (and this isn't exclusive to koreans) can sometimes gloss over refining the details of their ZvZ builds for optimal play, which is understandable considering it has been a fairly uncommon matchup in recent years in Korea (and on the flip side, it's extremely common in Europe). Obviously, Koreans are more aggressive in ZvZ (+tend to use riskier builds) but it's not like every Europe ZvZ is an economical game.
It reminds me of when Parting was able to get into a terran's base at HSC and was able to see just the one gas that basically guarantees a 3CC, yet when they asked him about it he paid no mind to it and basically said he doesn't know terran builds lol (and the casters went on to question why he didn't play greedy or go for double forge when he "knew" it was 3CC). Not completely relevant to the ZvZ thing but it was a funny moment when you realise that even our pro players aren't playing extremely nuanced a lot of the time. I'm sure Parting could've identified it as a 3CC build if he was just observing the game but it goes to show that when you're in-game, even the pros can do things that are "objectively" not optimal.
Anyone at Lambo's level could analyse any zerg's game and pick out many "objective inefficiencies" in their play. That isn't him suggesting he's better than them or even that he could beat them. If that's what you take out of this interview, then you should probably drink some tea. As long as it's not personal attacks, it's refreshing to see open criticism/discussion of the best players . It's healthy for the growth of the overall skill level of sc2 if people aren't so blindly ignorant to the flaws that can constantly occur in high lvl sc2, especially since our casters aren't quite high enough level to be able to point them out themselves to the viewers, in every matchup.
It’s part of what makes Starcraft a fun game to watch.
IdrA famously leaving the game against MMA because he ‘correctly’ analysed that he couldn’t win from that spot, not knowing he’d killed his own CC. Zest’s baffling macro flubs, or herO’s consistent ability to win games from sub-optimal and weird positions.
I wonder if there’s an element of Korean pride about learning from the foreign scene, or how much language barriers come into play too.