|
On November 24 2010 07:22 emperorchampion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 06:43 Metalwing wrote:On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote:
If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
Leenock vs Nada, Shakuras Plateu. Nothing else. EDIT: And stop being a stupid Terran fanboy. Srsly, I've spent a lot of time being banned at TL because of writing this kind of shit. Doesn't this guy get banned ever? http://sc2ranks.com/us/327563/aviloPlease have some respect for people who know what they are talking about, there is a reason no one listens to you.
I remember his past blogs, and this has nothing to do with his ranking. If he claims that Terran can't win past early game against Zerg, and I show him an example game of Terran keeping up with Zerg in base race and macro, it has nothing to do with rankings.
Besides, game 2&3 of Leenock vs Nada series were good macro games and game 1 was 6pool. You can look up on who won which game.
Speaking of rankings,
On November 24 2010 07:38 Liquid`Ret wrote:
3 terrans in top4 last gsl season, also look up overall TvZ stats pls
if you think zerg lategame is too strong maybe you shouldnt let them get to lategame with 80 drones, theres a million ways to kill or damage zerg early, i cant believe u still havent figured this out yet,
and even then marine/tank is a good option. in the ogs house terrans are doing fine vs zerg, lategame too
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote:
hey avilo
you lose because you're fucking awful
not because your race is hard
Do I have to look up on these guys' rankings? Or GSL do qualifier results speak for themselves?
Again, there are games that people keep up with zerg in terms of base numbers and win one-sidedly. But i can't give you vod links because I don't search youku and I'm not a premium member of GOM.
On November 24 2010 16:48 thesighter wrote:
Thread title should be "expect more avilo whining in sc2"
I was thinking of "Hey I'm back and whining as ever" but yours is better.
|
well Z seems to be bling >>> bio and terran cant do too much about it once they get 2 base bling into muta expo
|
i would like to point out chef's insightful post on the first page
|
There is a common thing among Terrans, they try to finish the game on 1 or 2 base and this gets as stupid as possible when Zerg gets 5 bases vs 2 base Terran and becomes able to defend all of these bases.
But what did Nada do against Leenock? He expanded as Leenock expanded. Because he knew that Leenock wouldn't make enough units because he's too busy making drones for his expoes and hoping that Nada doesn't attack right away. Leenock takes his third, Nada scouts that and he takes his own third. Leenock takes 4th, Nada wins an engagement, takes his own 4th, attacks and finishes. I don't actually think that Terran can't macrowin Zerg. I think that Terran doesn't try macrowinning Zerg.
On November 24 2010 18:35 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
i would like to point out chef's insightful post on the first page
Yes, his post is quite good.
|
On November 24 2010 05:22 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 05:13 NonFactor wrote:
Can you please explain in detail how Zerg can beat a macro Terran 100% the time, like your whine post seems to imply? It's no where near as bad as that, but Zerg's lategame has always remained untouched throughout every patch. It's hard for people to see just how good Z lategame is now, because we had that period of time where "Terran was OP" as in - Terran would do random gimmicky all-ins and get away with them. But even then...if you let Zerg go to late game it was heavily Z favored. It's only more so now.
What about that huge ultralisk nerf that makes ultras outright lose to thors ? Instead of hitting 1-4 thors at a time, they only hit 1 and only ever 1 Dx
|
On November 24 2010 14:17 Obscura.304 wrote:
Kyrix vs. JSL game 1.
What's that about Terran not being able to win past the early game?
Staying away from the rest of this thread, I don't think citing a game in which one player played extremely solid and the other player suicided maybe 50+ banelings for no good reason over the course of the game (between the initial attack, the embarrassing PF suicide, etc) is a good way to claim that something is balanced.
|
On November 25 2010 01:30 Pewt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 14:17 Obscura.304 wrote:
Kyrix vs. JSL game 1.
What's that about Terran not being able to win past the early game? Staying away from the rest of this thread, I don't think citing a game in which one player played extremely solid and the other player suicided maybe 50+ banelings for no good reason over the course of the game (between the initial attack, the embarrassing PF suicide, etc) is a good way to claim that something is balanced.
So you're picking out a specific mistake the Zerg did when a Terran wins, awesome. Are you suggesting that the Terran doesn't make mistakes when he loses?
And this is exactly what the people who claim "Zerg imba" are doing - showing specific games to show "imbalances" while ignoring that the Terrans aren't playing well or even trying to make it to the late game. Not to mention that in many cases, the Zerg just outplays them. It's not just one game. There are so many factors that go into every game, and the fact that late game is hard for some Terrans isn't an excuse to start whining about it.
Watch Leenock vs. Nada
Watch Kyrix vs. JSL
Watch Clide vs. Leenock
It's easily doable. Great games of TvZ can be played, and the whining is extremely off-putting.
|
On November 25 2010 01:55 Swixi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2010 01:30 Pewt wrote:On November 24 2010 14:17 Obscura.304 wrote:
Kyrix vs. JSL game 1.
What's that about Terran not being able to win past the early game? Staying away from the rest of this thread, I don't think citing a game in which one player played extremely solid and the other player suicided maybe 50+ banelings for no good reason over the course of the game (between the initial attack, the embarrassing PF suicide, etc) is a good way to claim that something is balanced. So you're picking out a specific mistake the Zerg did when a Terran wins, awesome. Are you suggesting that the Terran doesn't make mistakes when he loses? And this is exactly what the people who claim "Zerg imba" are doing - showing specific games to show "imbalances" while ignoring that the Terrans aren't playing well or even trying to make it to the late game. Not to mention that in many cases, the Zerg just outplays them. It's not just one game. There are so many factors that go into every game, and the fact that late game is hard for some Terrans isn't an excuse to start whining about it. Watch Leenock vs. Nada Watch Kyrix vs. JSL Watch Clide vs. Leenock It's easily doable. Great games of TvZ can be played, and the whining is extremely off-putting.
As I said in my first line ("staying away from the rest of the thread"), I wasn't trying to make any comments on balance, just that it was a horrible game to cite to try to make any statement on balance.
(Also, it was a collection of about 4 or 5 really really bad mistakes in the first game, although the second game was a little sloppy but more due to DQ being lame)
|
On November 24 2010 08:01 HalfAmazing wrote:
Stats are irrelevant. Results are irrelevant. Play the game, watch the games, and tell me if you like what you see. I know I don't.
i can't believe nobody's quoted this yet. there are still a lot of good games to watch, but it's kind of a situation where i have to cross my fingers and hope the game will last longer than 10 minutes.
i wish there were less of an incentive to try to finish the game early so that games would be more interesting to watch. most games in BW become macro games but it feels like most games in SC2, regardless of length, are decided after the first attack (for some reason i noticed the opposite in MLG games [which were incredible] so i have no idea what's going on, maybe it's just the GSL or korean scene?)
|
On November 25 2010 05:36 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 08:01 HalfAmazing wrote:
Stats are irrelevant. Results are irrelevant. Play the game, watch the games, and tell me if you like what you see. I know I don't. i can't believe nobody's quoted this yet. there are still a lot of good games to watch, but it's kind of a situation where i have to cross my fingers and hope the game will last longer than 10 minutes. i wish there were less of an incentive to try to finish the game early so that games would be more interesting to watch. most games in BW become macro games but it feels like most games in SC2, regardless of length, are decided after the first attack (for some reason i noticed the opposite in MLG games [which were incredible] so i have no idea what's going on, maybe it's just the GSL or korean scene?)
It comes with the evolution of the game and how much money is on the line. There are no sure fire ways to approach the game that will guarantee a huge amount of sucess. The all in build in TvZ is a high percentage chance to win for the Terran player. With the GSL that is a lot of money so you will do what you can to hopefully get a high percentage chance to advance further into the tournaments.
It is the map size which makes this build really powerful. The success of this finishing off a zerg player early in the game on a map like Shakuras plateau is really not that high.
The macro games will come in time. For the late game TvZ I feel it will get better as the macro game is touched on more. With terran a good unit composition is what you need to deal with the erratic tech switches zerg can throw at you. The days of massing one or two units to win the late game should be a thing of the past.
Terran air isn't used that much late game except for vikings. Well the zerg army lategame doesn't really seem to be able to shoot up and banshee's are a unit that can plow through ground units really fast. (Forcing the Zerg to have to make Mutalisks or Hydras to deal with the banshee's effectively will delay the Ultralisk push on your base.)
(This post was just the ramblings of a newbie)
|
On November 24 2010 14:42 Entropic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 14:17 Obscura.304 wrote:
Kyrix vs. JSL game 1.
What's that about Terran not being able to win past the early game? I think that was more due to Kyrixdoing a 2 hatch no lair baneling bust on Terran main and doing absolutely 0 damage.
A lot of these bad zergs are doing these all-in baneling busts. Terran has easily the best chances to win against aggro zergs. The really toughness comes in when you're playing a good macro zerg that knows how to use infestors and re-max.
Not these 1 dimensional baneling busters. kyrix somehow won that gstar tournament tho...lol.
|
Calgary25954 Posts
Yes, I agree, the real toughness does come from when you play good players that know how to play well...
Did you actually just say that?
|
On November 25 2010 07:04 Chill wrote:
Yes, I agree, the real toughness does come from when you play good players that know how to play well...
Did you actually just say that?
People keep trying to cite GSL games where "Terran won" as evidence that Terran doesn't have a tough time, which is not true. The easiest Z style to beat is aggressive baneling busting. You defend -> win.
|
Avilo, do you think you have any credibility when it comes to balance discussions? You are one of the very few terran players who saw absolutely no problem with 60 dmg siege tanks and the ability of terran to literally have an unkillable army. And by unkillable, I mean it could destroy maxed ultras or maxed broodlords without losing any units. Your argument was this: "Obviously! Zerg is not supposed to even let terran get maxed out on mech, this was the same case in BW! Obviously terran is going to win when he is maxed with siege tanks!" Now you have the exact same argument except you are whining the exact reverse. "You can't beat zerg late game! I have to beat zerg in early/mid game. This game is broken!"
source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=129070
|
Why are people bashing avilo? Can't we all see that a good zerg is almost unbeatable? Are you really serious Idra? I don't want to be a dick, but have you guys actually watched the 2 GSL finals? Maybe it's just me being retarded, but is it really coincidence that the 2 winner zergs are so much better then their final opponent? GSL finals 1: fruitdealer destroyed his opponent. He actually tried to play a macro game. GSL finals 2: the games won by boxer were not macro games.
Is it so wrong to call a good zerg unbeatable? Zerg is MUCH harder to play then terran, but when played right, zerg is just amazing. Morrow and TLO explained a few weeks ago that they felt too limited with terran. A perfect terran <<< a perfect zerg, always imo.
|
so when's the $1000 bo7 with ret going down?
|
On November 25 2010 07:34 Dente wrote:
Why are people bashing avilo? Can't we all see that a good zerg is almost unbeatable? Are you really serious Idra? I don't want to be a dick, but have you guys actually watched the 2 GSL finals? Maybe it's just me being retarded, but is it really coincidence that the 2 winner zergs are so much better then their final opponent? GSL finals 1: fruitdealer destroyed his opponent. He actually tried to play a macro game. GSL finals 2: the games won by boxer were not macro games.
You should really read the posts in this thread.
And Rainbow's TvZ is by far his weakest match-up.
Artosis and Tasteless made this comment during GSL 1, and I believe during GSL 2 also.
If I remember correctly Rainbow didn't hit a single Zerg in GSL 1 all the way up until Fruit Dealer.
Which is sort of ironic because avilo used this point in his defense, saying "Even Rainbow is using all-in rushes because TvZ late game is impossible". Funny that, I must say, considering that he probably did feel it was his best chance, because his TvZ is definitely lacking. I'd love to be able to pull up the interviews Rainbow had during GSL 1.
And how exactly does a 4-3 qualify as "so much better" than Fake Boxer?
If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock.
Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it.
And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
|
On November 25 2010 07:11 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2010 07:04 Chill wrote:
Yes, I agree, the real toughness does come from when you play good players that know how to play well...
Did you actually just say that? People keep trying to cite GSL games where "Terran won" as evidence that Terran doesn't have a tough time, which is not true. The easiest Z style to beat is aggressive baneling busting. You defend -> win.
No, Terrans winning in the GSL is evidence that it's not imossible at all for a Terran to keep up with a Zerg, which you seem to think.
avilo wrote:
Terrans basically already exhausted all of the options for attempting macro management play...to no avail. A management game versus Zerg in lategame is never an equal game.
...
not addressing Zerg's late game macro, which always has been invincible...
You claim that every possible strategy versus Zerg in a macro game has been tried. Can't you see how ludicrous this claim is in a game like Starcraft?
You are claiming that Zerg's late game is impossible to beat. In fact, it's doable quite clearly, which is evidenced by several GSL games, like Nada games, Clide vs. Leenock, JSL vs. Kyrix, etc. You have not given evidence that it's impossible to take Zerg on in a macro game. You have not given evidence that TvZ leans heavily in the favor of Z. You are examining a trend in TvZs that you don't like and taking it to be the be-all end-all of the matchup.
You pick specific games, and claim it as fact, without taking into account the skills of the players or any flaws the Terran makes.
avilo wrote:
Every Terran, even goddamn intotherainbow, is doing marine/scv all-in variations. These players are not stupid. They understand the state of the game.
Not every Terran is doing marine/scv all-in variations. Are you even watching these games? Some players are doing it because it's a current popular trend right now. This does not imply that it is impossible to beat Zerg in a macro game, at all.
Your problem Avilo is that you grossly overestimate the state of Zerg and problems concerning TvZ, and you come off as completely wrong. The reason you're called arrogant by people is because you seem to think you know everything about this matchup and you've concluded that it's impossible for Terran to beat Zerg, ignoring all of the evidence against it.
Do yourself a favor - start working out strategies to take Zerg on in a macro game. If you fail while executing your pinnacle strategy perfectly, show us the replay, and tell us why it was impossible to win. Then you'll have an argument based on evidence.
|
On November 25 2010 07:46 SCC-Faust wrote:
If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock.
Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it.
And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
Maybe Leenock his weakest matchup is zvt? Maybe that's the only reason why Clide did so well (I am reffering to your post about GSL 1 finals).
So those 2 final zergs being so much better (yes, boxer won 3 games, but with cheeses and allins!) is just coincidence? I'm looking forward to this GSL final. I really got the feeling that ret will actually win this tournament. His zergplay is so amazing and I just don't see a terran / protoss beating it.
|
On November 25 2010 07:52 Dente wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2010 07:46 SCC-Faust wrote:
If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock.
Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it.
And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
Maybe Clide his opponent his weakest matchup is zvt? Maybe that's the only reason why Clide did so well (I am reffering to your post about GSL 1 finals). So those 2 final zergs being so much better (yes, boxer won 3 games, but with cheeses and allins!) is just coincidence? I'm looking forward to this GSL final. I really got the feeling that ret will actually win this tournament. His zergplay is so amazing and I just don't see a terran / protoss beating it.
Maybe, I don't know. I thought Leenock played very good though.
And I don't know what Boxer's thought process was in cheesing. He proved he can play late-game TvZ in the round of 8 against Kyrix. Just as Clide proved he could play late game TvZ last night. You're definitely looking at this wrong though. You are saying Terran can't play late game against Zerg because some Terran opted to do rushes. There are some games where Terran DID play late game against Zerg and won. Why are you just throwing out half of the games? Do you not want them to count?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
