|
On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas
Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending.
Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential.
herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro.
That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works.
You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen.
If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition.
This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays.
If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit.
Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off.
It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way.
Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality.
|
On November 05 2024 04:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 03:37 ejozl wrote:
I don't wanna say that herO is the best, but I do think he mb hit protoss peak play at ewc. You cannot rly say serral was playing the zerg peak that weekend. for clem you can make that argument, but I personally, don't rly believe that, he's all brawn that's why I'm less excited by him, but he is rly impressive! Not far off. He beat Maru really convincingly, swept herO once, swept Dark 4-0 Clem just went Super Saiyan, Serral really wasn’t all that far off his best though, which usually sees him ahead of the field. It’s actually comparatively rare for players to really bring their absolute best set after set, which I guess is why it’s pretty notable when it does happen. There’s usually some kind of nail biting rubber set, some desperate clutch gambit, an opponent throwing a lead or whatever. Clem and Serral have won tournies and shown some fantastic StarCraft, but even their respective last Kato and EWC runs were another level where they looked nigh-on invincible
I think Maru was on to something when he said last year Clem was the best player/most likely to win the world championship (when pretty much no one else was making that call). One thing that's interesting to me is the concept of assessing "errors" in SC, which of course would be incredibly subjective but nonetheless is done in sports like baseball because errors are so critical to game outcomes. I have this theory--totally unsubstantiated--that even if Serral didn't play his best, Clem's "error" rate was higher but he nonetheless compensated for this with other aspects of his game. Which would I think be rare for this kind of game where the best strategy is generally to focus on avoiding blunders that lose you the game or put you in a terrible position while opportunistically capitalizing on your opponent's blunders (much like chess).
You would think this is just the general risk-reward proposition of any strategy game, but actually there have been recent metas in Poker and Chess that reliably reward "suboptimal" play that creates unbalanced and unstable positions that benefit the player that's better at evaluating and adapting to chaotic game states. I would like to see this kind of play more consistently rewarded in SC2 if only for the entertainment factor, which is why it's been sad to see Hero flounder a bit since he feels to me like the only player really thinking like that these days.
|
On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality.
Damn Zergs and and their *rolls dice* not having to move their screen.
I think most people understad the game enough to realize that the balance is good enough to say that herO is not on the same level as Serral, Maru and Clem. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore.
|
Northern Ireland25263 Posts
On November 06 2024 03:16 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 04:58 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 03:37 ejozl wrote:
I don't wanna say that herO is the best, but I do think he mb hit protoss peak play at ewc. You cannot rly say serral was playing the zerg peak that weekend. for clem you can make that argument, but I personally, don't rly believe that, he's all brawn that's why I'm less excited by him, but he is rly impressive! Not far off. He beat Maru really convincingly, swept herO once, swept Dark 4-0 Clem just went Super Saiyan, Serral really wasn’t all that far off his best though, which usually sees him ahead of the field. It’s actually comparatively rare for players to really bring their absolute best set after set, which I guess is why it’s pretty notable when it does happen. There’s usually some kind of nail biting rubber set, some desperate clutch gambit, an opponent throwing a lead or whatever. Clem and Serral have won tournies and shown some fantastic StarCraft, but even their respective last Kato and EWC runs were another level where they looked nigh-on invincible I think Maru was on to something when he said last year Clem was the best player/most likely to win the world championship (when pretty much no one else was making that call). One thing that's interesting to me is the concept of assessing "errors" in SC, which of course would be incredibly subjective but nonetheless is done in sports like baseball because errors are so critical to game outcomes. I have this theory--totally unsubstantiated--that even if Serral didn't play his best, Clem's "error" rate was higher but he nonetheless compensated for this with other aspects of his game. Which would I think be rare for this kind of game where the best strategy is generally to focus on avoiding blunders that lose you the game or put you in a terrible position while opportunistically capitalizing on your opponent's blunders (much like chess). You would think this is just the general risk-reward proposition of any strategy game, but actually there have been recent metas in Poker and Chess that reliably reward "suboptimal" play that creates unbalanced and unstable positions that benefit the player that's better at evaluating and adapting to chaotic game states. I would like to see this kind of play more consistently rewarded in SC2 if only for the entertainment factor, which is why it's been sad to see Hero flounder a bit since he feels to me like the only player really thinking like that these days.
Yeah for sure.
Clem makes errors the odd time because he plays very very high risk, high reward StarCraft. He’s unbelievably fast and he’ll seek to gain like a 1% advantage from a possibly 5% loss if it goes badly.
If he fucks up just a couple of times, that high tariff style backfires on him.
If he can keep it up for a series, or a whole tournament he’s actually untouchable.
I don’t think I’ve seen risky mechanically untouchable StarCraft like it before if we’re looking his EWC run, it was fucking ridiculous. Like absolutely absurd stuff
Perhaps Serral will work out some answers. For me there’s never been anyone better in SC2 for doing what you’re meant to do, reacting to unexpected stuff, general game reads. And phenomenally mechanically too. He’s a better strategist
Playing against a Clem who can exceed a realistic risk/reward expectation for an entire series? Man that’s tough, he has the better tools if he doesn’t make mistakes
|
On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Damn Zergs and and their *rolls dice* not having to move their screen. I think most people understad the game enough to realize that the balance is good enough to say that herO is not on the same level as Serral, Maru and Clem. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore.
True. One of the things that I don't think is discussed enough is how Maru's injuries may be impacting his play and I'd be really interested in hearing him talk about this as openly as we see/hear it with Byun. I recall sometimes Crank would talk about it, but more generally my intuition is that unlike Byun, Maru has chosen to adapt his playstyle to mix in a higher % of turtle strategies that can allow him to win on strategically superior turtle or positional play while mixing in perhaps a smaller % of proxy or aggressive plays than in the past.
Note also that this isn't meant as an "excuse" to explain Maru's subpar performances, but just more of an interesting observation on how players adapt to perhaps getting a bit slower in a game where--unlike many sports--it pays to be fast, but you can still be a top player even if you're a bit slower than you used to be.
The herO thing I addressed in my previous post.
|
Northern Ireland25263 Posts
On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Damn Zergs and and their *rolls dice* not having to move their screen. I think most people understad the game enough to realize that the balance is good enough to say that herO is not on the same level as Serral, Maru and Clem. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore.
herO is a big f2 lover. He also has a very idosyncratic hotkey style. So 1 is always main army, 2 is the last other thing he looked at.
And that’s it. OK he’ll add on with army complexity
Serral can control a super late game army basically immaculately, herO can’t because he doesn’t even get there that often.
As I said before, I think as a consistent executor, pre-military Trap was better than herO. herO has perhaps the mind and the mindset, if you could mash them together maybe you get a WC tier Toss player
Trap won like 6 Premiers, made 2 GSL finals, plus multiple deep placings in the span of a few years.
He also became the only player to make 10 consecutive Ro8+ finishes in GSL
If that feat is ever beaten it’ll be due to a smaller GSL
|
Northern Ireland25263 Posts
On November 06 2024 03:40 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Damn Zergs and and their *rolls dice* not having to move their screen. I think most people understad the game enough to realize that the balance is good enough to say that herO is not on the same level as Serral, Maru and Clem. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. True. One of the things that I don't think is discussed enough is how Maru's injuries may be impacting his play and I'd be really interested in hearing him talk about this as openly as we see/hear it with Byun. I recall sometimes Crank would talk about it, but more generally my intuition is that unlike Byun, Maru has chosen to adapt his playstyle to mix in a higher % of turtle strategies that can allow him to win on strategically superior turtle or positional play while mixing in perhaps a smaller % of proxy or aggressive plays than in the past. Note also that this isn't meant as an "excuse" to explain Maru's subpar performances, but just more of an interesting observation on how players adapt to perhaps getting a bit slower in a game where--unlike many sports--it pays to be fast, but you can still be a top player even if you're a bit slower than you used to be. The herO thing I addressed in my previous post.
The thing is, if anything Maru adopting his turtle strategies actually taxes him more mechanically
Versus top dog Zergs his current approach basically necessitates a 20+ minute slugfest every single set
|
On November 06 2024 03:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 03:40 rwala wrote:On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Damn Zergs and and their *rolls dice* not having to move their screen. I think most people understad the game enough to realize that the balance is good enough to say that herO is not on the same level as Serral, Maru and Clem. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. True. One of the things that I don't think is discussed enough is how Maru's injuries may be impacting his play and I'd be really interested in hearing him talk about this as openly as we see/hear it with Byun. I recall sometimes Crank would talk about it, but more generally my intuition is that unlike Byun, Maru has chosen to adapt his playstyle to mix in a higher % of turtle strategies that can allow him to win on strategically superior turtle or positional play while mixing in perhaps a smaller % of proxy or aggressive plays than in the past. Note also that this isn't meant as an "excuse" to explain Maru's subpar performances, but just more of an interesting observation on how players adapt to perhaps getting a bit slower in a game where--unlike many sports--it pays to be fast, but you can still be a top player even if you're a bit slower than you used to be. The herO thing I addressed in my previous post. The thing is, if anything Maru adopting his turtle strategies actually taxes him more mechanically Versus top dog Zergs his current approach basically necessitates a 20+ minute slugfest every single set
I've been wondering about this (I'm not good enough to know). When watching in FPV it seems like he moves and clicks his mouse relatively slowly compared to other players (but incredibly precisely). I recall Reynor and others actually remarking on how slow and methodical Maru is these days compared to others. Feels like if you're spending your APM positioning and repositioning tanks and libs that's maybe less stress than trying to control multiple drops or properly micro proxy play while macro'ing back home but you're probably right that simply playing longer games would be more taxing overall. Was more of just a theory I had, most likely not a correct one. I'd still be interested in hearing him talk about it though I imagine these kinds of things are not fun to think about let alone talk about.
|
On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore.
Interesting to exclude maru but also consider serral to be on the same level as clem instead of clem being clearly number 1. Maru got top 2 iem, top 1 gsl s1, top 2 gsl s2, top 1 at starswar, and top 2 at esl spring. Throughout the year what looked most damaging to his image was the head to head against serral, which I guess is enough to not put him in the same group as serral. Then again, serral went 0-8 against clem...
|
On November 06 2024 05:35 lokol4890 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. Interesting to exclude maru but also consider serral to be on the same level as clem instead of clem being clearly number 1. Maru got top 2 iem, top 1 gsl s1, top 2 gsl s2, top 1 at starswar, and top 2 at esl spring. Throughout the year what looked most damaging to his image was the head to head against serral, which I guess is enough to not put him in the same group as serral. Then again, serral went 0-8 against clem...
Yeah I don't think head-to-head is all that useful of a metric, at least in these kinds of esports. The simple reason being that what matters most is tournament results and there can be all kinds of idiosyncratic reasons a top player might be a tournament favorite overall while still being a stylistic mismatch against another player. Maru v. Serral is of course the prime example of this. The more complicated reason is that that, especially in preparation-based tournaments, players "save builds" and pursue other equity-maximizing strategies that might produce higher-than-expected variance in head-to-head results, especially if the players haven't played enough series against each other for the variance to smooth. That's a fancy way of saying that's it's not all that surprising when lower tier players take out top tier players in GSL because the former's goal is to advance out of the group stage and they will use all their best builds and strategies and the latter's goal is to win the whole thing so will save their builds, sometimes even at the cost of elimination.
Of course head-to-head results are not irrelevant. A top player will inevitably have decent head-to-head results against most other top players because if they're winning lots of tournaments, they're probably not losing too many series. But at least personally I'm not too worried about the fact that Rogue has a losing head-to-head record against Showtime or whatever if he's picking his spots and winning tournaments (I maintain that Rogue's offline Bo7 record is one of the greatest accomplishments in all of e-sports).
That was a long-winded way of saying that big picture I don't think these head-to-head losing streaks for Serral or Maru matter too much other than it's not so fun to watch these one-sided finals. It'll matter to some degree from a player psychology perspective for future results probably as well, but longer-term it'll be more about the accomplishments than anything else.
|
Northern Ireland25263 Posts
On November 06 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 05:35 lokol4890 wrote:On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. Interesting to exclude maru but also consider serral to be on the same level as clem instead of clem being clearly number 1. Maru got top 2 iem, top 1 gsl s1, top 2 gsl s2, top 1 at starswar, and top 2 at esl spring. Throughout the year what looked most damaging to his image was the head to head against serral, which I guess is enough to not put him in the same group as serral. Then again, serral went 0-8 against clem... Yeah I don't think head-to-head is all that useful of a metric, at least in these kinds of esports. The simple reason being that what matters most is tournament results and there can be all kinds of idiosyncratic reasons a top player might be a tournament favorite overall while still being a stylistic mismatch against another player. Maru v. Serral is of course the prime example of this. The more complicated reason is that that, especially in preparation-based tournaments, players "save builds" and pursue other equity-maximizing strategies that might produce higher-than-expected variance in head-to-head results, especially if the players haven't played enough series against each other for the variance to smooth. That's a fancy way of saying that's it's not all that surprising when lower tier players take out top tier players in GSL because the former's goal is to advance out of the group stage and they will use all their best builds and strategies and the latter's goal is to win the whole thing so will save their builds, sometimes even at the cost of elimination. Of course head-to-head results are not irrelevant. A top player will inevitably have decent head-to-head results against most other top players because if they're winning lots of tournaments, they're probably not losing too many series. But at least personally I'm not too worried about the fact that Rogue has a losing head-to-head record against Showtime or whatever if he's picking his spots and winning tournaments (I maintain that Rogue's offline Bo7 record is one of the greatest accomplishments in all of e-sports). That was a long-winded way of saying that big picture I don't think these head-to-head losing streaks for Serral or Maru matter too much other than it's not so fun to watch these one-sided finals. It'll matter to some degree from a player psychology perspective for future results probably as well, but longer-term it'll be more about the accomplishments than anything else.
Serral has smacked Maru around in any meaningful match they’ve played for like 2 years, it’s hardly a minor stylistic difference
Most overrated perhaps. It’s impressive but Rogue was a massively streaky player. You never play a Bo7 generally in this game unless you’re making a grand final.
Guys like Maru or Serral made far, far more of them.
It’s basically a stat that says ‘when Rogue was in championship winning form, he won’. It’s still impressive for the clutch factor but IMO hugely overrated
|
On November 06 2024 05:35 lokol4890 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. Interesting to exclude maru but also consider serral to be on the same level as clem instead of clem being clearly number 1. Maru got top 2 iem, top 1 gsl s1, top 2 gsl s2, top 1 at starswar, and top 2 at esl spring. Throughout the year what looked most damaging to his image was the head to head against serral, which I guess is enough to not put him in the same group as serral. Then again, serral went 0-8 against clem...
If it makes you happy, you can make a hacking order of Clem>Serral>>>>>Maru. Clem winning EWC in an incredibly dominant fashion and afterwards BGE (though no Serral there) puts him clearly in the No. 1 spot "right now", though with the small bruise of not carrying Liquid to the WTL title. Maru just lacks behind both of them epecially since his year seemed to get worse over time. But he still managed to win both of his titles this year against herO, which is why I put him even now one level above.
|
On November 06 2024 08:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On November 06 2024 05:35 lokol4890 wrote:On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. Interesting to exclude maru but also consider serral to be on the same level as clem instead of clem being clearly number 1. Maru got top 2 iem, top 1 gsl s1, top 2 gsl s2, top 1 at starswar, and top 2 at esl spring. Throughout the year what looked most damaging to his image was the head to head against serral, which I guess is enough to not put him in the same group as serral. Then again, serral went 0-8 against clem... Yeah I don't think head-to-head is all that useful of a metric, at least in these kinds of esports. The simple reason being that what matters most is tournament results and there can be all kinds of idiosyncratic reasons a top player might be a tournament favorite overall while still being a stylistic mismatch against another player. Maru v. Serral is of course the prime example of this. The more complicated reason is that that, especially in preparation-based tournaments, players "save builds" and pursue other equity-maximizing strategies that might produce higher-than-expected variance in head-to-head results, especially if the players haven't played enough series against each other for the variance to smooth. That's a fancy way of saying that's it's not all that surprising when lower tier players take out top tier players in GSL because the former's goal is to advance out of the group stage and they will use all their best builds and strategies and the latter's goal is to win the whole thing so will save their builds, sometimes even at the cost of elimination. Of course head-to-head results are not irrelevant. A top player will inevitably have decent head-to-head results against most other top players because if they're winning lots of tournaments, they're probably not losing too many series. But at least personally I'm not too worried about the fact that Rogue has a losing head-to-head record against Showtime or whatever if he's picking his spots and winning tournaments (I maintain that Rogue's offline Bo7 record is one of the greatest accomplishments in all of e-sports). That was a long-winded way of saying that big picture I don't think these head-to-head losing streaks for Serral or Maru matter too much other than it's not so fun to watch these one-sided finals. It'll matter to some degree from a player psychology perspective for future results probably as well, but longer-term it'll be more about the accomplishments than anything else. Serral has smacked Maru around in any meaningful match they’ve played for like 2 years, it’s hardly a minor stylistic difference Most overrated perhaps. It’s impressive but Rogue was a massively streaky player. You never play a Bo7 generally in this game unless you’re making a grand final. Guys like Maru or Serral made far, far more of them. It’s basically a stat that says ‘when Rogue was in championship winning form, he won’. It’s still impressive for the clutch factor but IMO hugely overrated
I didn’t describe it as a “minor stylistic difference” and beyond the basic reading comprehension issue there it seems you also failed to absorb the broader point. Soo made quite a few too, you could have mentioned him but then of course…
|
Northern Ireland25263 Posts
On November 06 2024 13:27 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 08:48 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On November 06 2024 05:35 lokol4890 wrote:On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:On November 03 2024 15:59 Drahkn wrote:
Protoss was relevant early SC2 history because it had many all inns that Zerg and Terran needed time to adapt to, once they knew how to counter it most all inns died at pro level. And in general the game was not figured out so balance was less of a issue at the time because most playstyles were not optimal just good for its time and the meta was far from figured out at this stage.
It also took them a little time to learn how to deal with the Protoss DeathBalls generally just because of lack of game understanding at the time, a lot of nerfs to protoss were actually uncalled for , it's just that the Zerg and Terran cries were pretty loud back then and still is.
So the more the meta settled and the more SC2 was figured out Protoss were becoming noticeably weaker a long the years and many of its strong playstyles would get nerfed pretty quickly as the Pro complaints were just overwhelming and the army of fans that followed players like Maru and your Dark and Rogue etc would just reinforce this false impression of Protoss being "to easy and to strong" Protoss is actually insanely hard to play at the elite level because you have less tools and you can make less mistakes then the other 2 races, people fail to understand this fact.
Protoss did find many playstyles over the years that "looked broken" but instead of having Terran and Zerg adapt they just did quick nerfs to Protoss, you can check the patch history and look at Tournament results its actually absurd.
Personally I believe herO is the best SC2 player we have at the moment but he cannot win because he plays Protoss. If the game was balanced I believe herO would absolutely destroy his competition. I don't think anyone comes even remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability What are you basing that on? I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. Interesting to exclude maru but also consider serral to be on the same level as clem instead of clem being clearly number 1. Maru got top 2 iem, top 1 gsl s1, top 2 gsl s2, top 1 at starswar, and top 2 at esl spring. Throughout the year what looked most damaging to his image was the head to head against serral, which I guess is enough to not put him in the same group as serral. Then again, serral went 0-8 against clem... Yeah I don't think head-to-head is all that useful of a metric, at least in these kinds of esports. The simple reason being that what matters most is tournament results and there can be all kinds of idiosyncratic reasons a top player might be a tournament favorite overall while still being a stylistic mismatch against another player. Maru v. Serral is of course the prime example of this. The more complicated reason is that that, especially in preparation-based tournaments, players "save builds" and pursue other equity-maximizing strategies that might produce higher-than-expected variance in head-to-head results, especially if the players haven't played enough series against each other for the variance to smooth. That's a fancy way of saying that's it's not all that surprising when lower tier players take out top tier players in GSL because the former's goal is to advance out of the group stage and they will use all their best builds and strategies and the latter's goal is to win the whole thing so will save their builds, sometimes even at the cost of elimination. Of course head-to-head results are not irrelevant. A top player will inevitably have decent head-to-head results against most other top players because if they're winning lots of tournaments, they're probably not losing too many series. But at least personally I'm not too worried about the fact that Rogue has a losing head-to-head record against Showtime or whatever if he's picking his spots and winning tournaments (I maintain that Rogue's offline Bo7 record is one of the greatest accomplishments in all of e-sports). That was a long-winded way of saying that big picture I don't think these head-to-head losing streaks for Serral or Maru matter too much other than it's not so fun to watch these one-sided finals. It'll matter to some degree from a player psychology perspective for future results probably as well, but longer-term it'll be more about the accomplishments than anything else. Serral has smacked Maru around in any meaningful match they’ve played for like 2 years, it’s hardly a minor stylistic difference Most overrated perhaps. It’s impressive but Rogue was a massively streaky player. You never play a Bo7 generally in this game unless you’re making a grand final. Guys like Maru or Serral made far, far more of them. It’s basically a stat that says ‘when Rogue was in championship winning form, he won’. It’s still impressive for the clutch factor but IMO hugely overrated I didn’t describe it as a “minor stylistic difference” and beyond the basic reading comprehension issue there it seems you also failed to absorb the broader point. Soo made quite a few too, you could have mentioned him but then of course…
Sure, I was paraphrasing and ‘stylistic mismatch’ is what you actually said, which isn’t exactly particularly different
I don’t even entirely disagree on head to head but Maru’s gone a long, long period where he’s able to have a favourable record against everyone or at least trade, but basically lose every single time to Serral. At some point it has to count for something
|
On November 06 2024 14:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 13:27 rwala wrote:On November 06 2024 08:48 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On November 06 2024 05:35 lokol4890 wrote:On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:On November 03 2024 21:15 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
What are you basing that on?
I think he’s a phenomenal, S-class player but he’s certainly not mechanically better than some of his competition
Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing? herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. Interesting to exclude maru but also consider serral to be on the same level as clem instead of clem being clearly number 1. Maru got top 2 iem, top 1 gsl s1, top 2 gsl s2, top 1 at starswar, and top 2 at esl spring. Throughout the year what looked most damaging to his image was the head to head against serral, which I guess is enough to not put him in the same group as serral. Then again, serral went 0-8 against clem... Yeah I don't think head-to-head is all that useful of a metric, at least in these kinds of esports. The simple reason being that what matters most is tournament results and there can be all kinds of idiosyncratic reasons a top player might be a tournament favorite overall while still being a stylistic mismatch against another player. Maru v. Serral is of course the prime example of this. The more complicated reason is that that, especially in preparation-based tournaments, players "save builds" and pursue other equity-maximizing strategies that might produce higher-than-expected variance in head-to-head results, especially if the players haven't played enough series against each other for the variance to smooth. That's a fancy way of saying that's it's not all that surprising when lower tier players take out top tier players in GSL because the former's goal is to advance out of the group stage and they will use all their best builds and strategies and the latter's goal is to win the whole thing so will save their builds, sometimes even at the cost of elimination. Of course head-to-head results are not irrelevant. A top player will inevitably have decent head-to-head results against most other top players because if they're winning lots of tournaments, they're probably not losing too many series. But at least personally I'm not too worried about the fact that Rogue has a losing head-to-head record against Showtime or whatever if he's picking his spots and winning tournaments (I maintain that Rogue's offline Bo7 record is one of the greatest accomplishments in all of e-sports). That was a long-winded way of saying that big picture I don't think these head-to-head losing streaks for Serral or Maru matter too much other than it's not so fun to watch these one-sided finals. It'll matter to some degree from a player psychology perspective for future results probably as well, but longer-term it'll be more about the accomplishments than anything else. Serral has smacked Maru around in any meaningful match they’ve played for like 2 years, it’s hardly a minor stylistic difference Most overrated perhaps. It’s impressive but Rogue was a massively streaky player. You never play a Bo7 generally in this game unless you’re making a grand final. Guys like Maru or Serral made far, far more of them. It’s basically a stat that says ‘when Rogue was in championship winning form, he won’. It’s still impressive for the clutch factor but IMO hugely overrated I didn’t describe it as a “minor stylistic difference” and beyond the basic reading comprehension issue there it seems you also failed to absorb the broader point. Soo made quite a few too, you could have mentioned him but then of course… Sure, I was paraphrasing and ‘stylistic mismatch’ is what you actually said, which isn’t exactly particularly different I don’t even entirely disagree on head to head but Maru’s gone a long, long period where he’s able to have a favourable record against everyone or at least trade, but basically lose every single time to Serral. At some point it has to count for something
You’re missing the point, I think in part because you think I’m making a pro-Maru argument or something. I’ll help you. Serral is better than Maru and has been for some time. I think everyone, including Maru, would agree.
That said, Serral is not anywhere close to better than Maru on the level that their recent or even historical head-to-head record would suggest. This is where my “stylistic mismatch” comment comes in because I think it’s probably the best explanation for the discrepancy, tho it could also be partly psychological. It doesn’t matter tho because whatever the reason Serral has Maru’s number and outplays him.
But here’s the main point: Serral is not better than Maru because he has dominating head-to-head record in the last couple of years. He is better than Maru because he’s achieved better results in premier tournaments in the last couple years. That’s what matters.
There is a very simple way to grasp this. Imagine Player A wins all the tournaments. Now imagine Player B has a 100% head-to-head record against Player A, but has won no tournaments. Who is the “better” player? This stylized example isolates the variables to hopefully make it easier to understand the basic concept.
|
Northern Ireland25263 Posts
On November 07 2024 09:11 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 14:53 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 13:27 rwala wrote:On November 06 2024 08:48 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On November 06 2024 05:35 lokol4890 wrote:On November 06 2024 03:19 Balnazza wrote:On November 05 2024 22:39 Drahkn wrote:On November 05 2024 03:19 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 01:49 Drahkn wrote:
[quote]
Ever heard the quote : It's hard to look good when you are losing?
herO frequently makes huge errors, either in execution or tactically that aren’t even forced on him but are just bad errors It’s part of his charm. He may pull off some incisive attack nobody saw coming and somehow make it work, sometime he’ll suicide. Any reasonably impartial follower of the game rates herO, he’s got great micro, killer instinct and basically solo revolutionised PvZ to make it quite a fun matchup. Like, he’s an S-class, championship calibre player isn’t enough though, he has to somehow be so good that nobody ‘comes remotely close to herO in overall skill and ability’? I just don’t see where the justification is for that particular claim. Does he read a game better and make fewer mistakes than Serral? Is he mechanically as sound as Clem or Maru? Hell I think he’s got higher highs, I think Trap when he was at the top of the game was the more consistent player with better execution. Perhaps lacks some things herO has, but he was stronger in other areas Serral makes mistakes but Zerg plays differently you have more room for mistakes with Zerg, and Zerg openings are way more solid and has easier time defending. Terran is the same, a even trade for Terran means they are miles ahead, a slightly worse trade in terms of resource will still favor Terran, Terran can throw stuff at Protoss after getting shut down but if one sticks that's usually game. Protoss must have near flawless early mid games or they collapse hard later on, Zerg and Terran have way more play and comeback potential. herO plays hyper aggressive and sometimes prioritize micro and cost effectiveness of his units over flawless macro. That's where people like you in my opinion have to little understanding of how Protoss works. You can't warp in and micro at the same time with Protoss, Terran and Zerg can cycle production while being on the same screen. If Protoss was more streamlined like Zerg and Terran I have no doubt herO would absolutely destroy his competition. This is not the case since Protoss is forced to commit to builds that are aggressive and aggressive can also be trying to get away with greed, either way Protoss is forced to commit to risky plays. If the opponent manages to scout properly it can get shut down pretty hard, but Protoss is not a race that can just switch gears, if Protoss commits to something they have to commit. Obviously the Protoss tries and it fails and Protoss looks like a really bad player but fact is he was kinda screwd when the enemy got the scout off. It's hard to be consistent and look solid when you play a race like Protoss because you have to gamble a lot and you will fall flat on your face and look silly. And you pretend its the players fault for being bad when in fact the race is just designed this way. Sadly I think a lot of people have the same view as you and don't truly understand how Protoss matchups function and how it is in reality. Which says a lot, considering that not even Maru seems to be on the level of Serral and Clem anymore. Interesting to exclude maru but also consider serral to be on the same level as clem instead of clem being clearly number 1. Maru got top 2 iem, top 1 gsl s1, top 2 gsl s2, top 1 at starswar, and top 2 at esl spring. Throughout the year what looked most damaging to his image was the head to head against serral, which I guess is enough to not put him in the same group as serral. Then again, serral went 0-8 against clem... Yeah I don't think head-to-head is all that useful of a metric, at least in these kinds of esports. The simple reason being that what matters most is tournament results and there can be all kinds of idiosyncratic reasons a top player might be a tournament favorite overall while still being a stylistic mismatch against another player. Maru v. Serral is of course the prime example of this. The more complicated reason is that that, especially in preparation-based tournaments, players "save builds" and pursue other equity-maximizing strategies that might produce higher-than-expected variance in head-to-head results, especially if the players haven't played enough series against each other for the variance to smooth. That's a fancy way of saying that's it's not all that surprising when lower tier players take out top tier players in GSL because the former's goal is to advance out of the group stage and they will use all their best builds and strategies and the latter's goal is to win the whole thing so will save their builds, sometimes even at the cost of elimination. Of course head-to-head results are not irrelevant. A top player will inevitably have decent head-to-head results against most other top players because if they're winning lots of tournaments, they're probably not losing too many series. But at least personally I'm not too worried about the fact that Rogue has a losing head-to-head record against Showtime or whatever if he's picking his spots and winning tournaments (I maintain that Rogue's offline Bo7 record is one of the greatest accomplishments in all of e-sports). That was a long-winded way of saying that big picture I don't think these head-to-head losing streaks for Serral or Maru matter too much other than it's not so fun to watch these one-sided finals. It'll matter to some degree from a player psychology perspective for future results probably as well, but longer-term it'll be more about the accomplishments than anything else. Serral has smacked Maru around in any meaningful match they’ve played for like 2 years, it’s hardly a minor stylistic difference Most overrated perhaps. It’s impressive but Rogue was a massively streaky player. You never play a Bo7 generally in this game unless you’re making a grand final. Guys like Maru or Serral made far, far more of them. It’s basically a stat that says ‘when Rogue was in championship winning form, he won’. It’s still impressive for the clutch factor but IMO hugely overrated I didn’t describe it as a “minor stylistic difference” and beyond the basic reading comprehension issue there it seems you also failed to absorb the broader point. Soo made quite a few too, you could have mentioned him but then of course… Sure, I was paraphrasing and ‘stylistic mismatch’ is what you actually said, which isn’t exactly particularly different I don’t even entirely disagree on head to head but Maru’s gone a long, long period where he’s able to have a favourable record against everyone or at least trade, but basically lose every single time to Serral. At some point it has to count for something You’re missing the point, I think in part because you think I’m making a pro-Maru argument or something. I’ll help you. Serral is better than Maru and has been for some time. I think everyone, including Maru, would agree. That said, Serral is not anywhere close to better than Maru on the level that their recent or even historical head-to-head record would suggest. This is where my “stylistic mismatch” comment comes in because I think it’s probably the best explanation for the discrepancy, tho it could also be partly psychological. It doesn’t matter tho because whatever the reason Serral has Maru’s number and outplays him. But here’s the main point: Serral is not better than Maru because he has dominating head-to-head record in the last couple of years. He is better than Maru because he’s achieved better results in premier tournaments in the last couple years. That’s what matters. There is a very simple way to grasp this. Imagine Player A wins all the tournaments. Now imagine Player B has a 100% head-to-head record against Player A, but has won no tournaments. Who is the “better” player? This stylized example isolates the variables to hopefully make it easier to understand the basic concept.
Ok I misconstrued, I think that’s fair
Equally I think like the absolute best Maru, we’re maybe not seeing now. He’s still incredibly good but I think be it injuries, be it motivation, be it mental block. Whatever it is, as good as Serral is he’s not got an 80% win rate versus Maru at his absolute best.
I also don’t mean to diminish Rogue’s achievement, I just think it’s a very specific stat
Actually just dominating the scene for a long period for me outweighs ‘well we’ll ignore the Ro32 exits but they specifically always win in a Bo7 finals that have to be offline’ A Bo5 final that they lose doesn’t count, nor does a Bo7 that’s online
There’s too many caveats, for me.
Rogue’s better claim to eSports glory is periods of stomping everyone and winning back to back to back tournaments
Which he did, which is why he’s up there in my GOAT list. But that specific stat annoys me
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
