I feel good. I prepared a lot for my match. After I won, I got up and let all of my frustration out and felt extremely relieved. I have prepared for tournaments (such as WCG) like this before but I haven't prepared for a single match up and single player like that in a very long time. I am very happy.
Describe what happened in each game and what you were thinking at critical moments.
Game 1, I started with a safe / macro oriented build. I was relieved he didn't proxy gate simply because I scouted a little later than I usually do because Cloud is a solid player and I didn't expect proxies. We both went into macro oriented builds but where it differed, I cut probes throughout the game strategically to ensure that I would win the first decisive battle, wether it be him attacking me or me attacking him.
Time passed long enough that I had to engage or I would lose due to his probe count. So I pushed at his third (which I didn't know he had) and simply 1a2a3a4a when I was in a good position and won the battle like I planned. Him taking a third so early ensured it as a victory for me, if he didn't it woulda been closer.
And Game Two?
Game 2, I started with essentially the same build order as Game 1. Fast expo off into probe cut to get my robo / 2nd and 3rd gateway up faster to stop any aggressive attacks. He actually attacked me off two gateways and micro'd better than me to force all my units back into my main as he was killing my nat. I had to use probes to stop his attack, at which point I thought I would probably lose. He miss-micro'd and I got to screw up his goons AI with my probes a bit / hold my nat which is the only reason I was still in the game.
After that I had NO idea wtf he was doing and basically made as many units as fast as I could thinking a 3 gate goon or something was about to run me over. When my first ob got out I saw he did 2 gate reaver and I basically played the best I could / adapted to whatever he was doing to try and hold on. There was about 3 points in this game I thought I lost.
His final attack he attacked me with a bigger army and I was basically like "f*ck" and he ended up pulling back for whatever reason (scared of reavers or something I think) and I just 1a2a3a'd into his base / brought along my straggling reavers. I got to chip away waaaay too much during his retreat and pushed into his nat ftw. This game we traded armies a bunch and with my probe cutting I felt like I was on the edge all game and behind in eco the entire time. I would be surprised if I was ever up in supply the entire game. I was just fortunate to have fought in pretty good positionings in almost every battle.
What do you think about flaf? How is your PvZ? You will be facing two tough Zergs in the upcoming weeks.
I still don't know much about FlaF. I have been told a few things from friends about him but nothing worth noting. He qualified for TSL so he obviously isn't someone you can take lightly, and I won't. My PvZ right now is the best it has ever been. I have been fortunate for many years that I have so many friends who are some of the fiercest players outside of Korea. I will definitively be calling on them for advice / practice in the upcoming days / weeks to prepare for my matches vs FlaF and possibly Ret.
Are you doing anything to celebrate?
I celebrated after the match with a nice little victory cigarette. And now it's back to preparing for my next match / living normal life.
Who helped you practice for this match? Any shout-outs?
I want to thank White-Ra, NonY and iNfeRnaL for their help with practice / theorycrafting for this match. Especially White-rA who theorycrafted with me quite a bit over a span of a week or two and helped me to understand the match up a lot more.
Thanks for the interview and good luck next round!
Thanks for supporting me. I will be bringing my A-GAME every match I play throughout this tournament. If I lose it won't be because I was unprepared. <3 All~ G'Night~
This TSL is sponsored by PokerStrategy.com, the world's largest poker school and community. With hundreds of Poker VODs and an assortment of learning material in 18 different languages, PokerStrategy.com offers the chance for aspiring Poker players to learn from a beginner to a professional level.
Who helped you practice for this match? Any shout-outs?
I want to thank White-Ra, NonY and iNfeRnaL for their help with practice / theorycrafting for this match. Especially White-rA who theorycrafted with me quite a bit over a span of a week or two and helped me to understand the match up a lot more.
I feel like the TSL is going to raise the level of the foreigner game quite a bit..! This is awesome.
Felt like cloud's battle positions were quite poor both games. Think he would've won with just a little better positioning. Oh well, better luck next time
gj G5 and gl vs FlaF. Game 2 was weird.... I really thought Cloud had that from the start when he scouted the 1 gate expo and then throughout the game with his eco+army advantage.
Unexpected result, I totally expected this to go to a third game [especially while watching game two]. I like G5 and Cloud a lot, together with White-Ra, those are my three favourite Protoss players, so it's bittersweet considering one had to lose. I feel bad for Cloud because in game one, I felt he was ahead, and that G5's attack was one he needed to make [obviously, he even stated in the replay]. It's unfortunate that Cloud didn't have storm when G5 attacked, it was essentially perfect [unintentional, but w/e] timing on G5's part, but IDK if Cloud could have survived even with storm, would've been a lot closer that's for sure.
Good luck in the rest of the tournament G5, I hope either you or White-Ra wins it, or goes really far! Good luck in future endeavors Cloud, I hope you still play BW!
That was some very tight play by both players, but I felt that Cloud really dropped the ball with his army control. In every battle G5 had a sexy concave outside Cloud's clumped units. I think this was a decisive factor in his victory.
Still, a very nice showing by both players. What a nice first couple of games in these TSL qualifiers.
Really impressed with G5's play in game 1. Even though he said he didn't know the 3rd came up and he attacked about 15 seconds before storm finished for cloud, you gotta think that G5 just had a better grasp of the game and he was on a roll. Everything went in G5's his favor for that battle. Plus, that concave was sexy. Cloud just looked awkward for most of the time with only a few glimpses of brilliance sprinkled throughout the series.
GG to both players and I'm glad to see you advance G5, I was definitely pulling for you in this match.
I definately wanted ClouD to win, but it sounds like G5 has been practicing very hard for some time now... so its a well deserved win. I also enjoyed reading his interview.
If it was a best of 5, it may have been another story. Both games had some very fortunate battle micro situations work out for G5
As pretty much everyone has said, these two are both solid players and either one of them deserves to advance. It's a shame that they had to end up matched up so early on. On that note with the group, it's a shame that these three [G5, ClouD & ret] ended up in the same group together, as I feel all three of them could've had success in the Ro16.
lol wow Cloud was one of the only r3 people I voted for to advance. I am a little surprised but mostly impressed. I would of been happy with either player advancing. The games G5 just put up were quite simply amazing timing and army control. Although it must be said that cloud played rather sub-par for some of it especially when losing his first reaver in game 2 for basically nothing.
It was very frustrating, I play so bad in tournaments. My preparation this time was far superior to g5 but I get too nervous and make shitty decisions, like making 4 templars before researching storm in the first game or even forgetting to research storm in the second one. I won't congratulate to g5 because I think he actually played bad (going for blind, unsafe builds without having a clue of what I was doing), but well in the end the mistake was mine trying to think I can compete in tournaments even though I always get nervous and ansious to the point of not being able to think logically at all.
Man game 2 was VERY exciting, i was shocked when Cloud lost. But why didn't he cast storms? No research? :/ I guess with storms Cloud would have been in way better situation, especially when 2 reavers were near each other with attack at his nat. But gotta say - G5 really made a good job with his last attack.
On January 07 2010 18:19 iG.ClouD wrote: It was very frustrating, I play so bad in tournaments. My preparation this time was far superior to g5 but I get too nervous and make shitty decisions, like making 4 templars before researching storm in the first game or even forgetting to research storm in the second one. I won't congratulate to g5 because I think he actually played bad (going for blind, unsafe builds without having a clue of what I was doing), but well in the end the mistake was mine trying to think I can compete in tournaments even though I always get nervous and ansious to the point of not being able to think logically at all.
I hate that kind of unmannered posts. Ok, you lost. Just stand it. He played better than you. Talking about having a "far superior preparation" or not congratulating, because "G5 played bad", is simply disrespectful. You won't win any friends talking like this.
On January 07 2010 18:19 iG.ClouD wrote: It was very frustrating, I play so bad in tournaments. My preparation this time was far superior to g5 but I get too nervous and make shitty decisions, like making 4 templars before researching storm in the first game or even forgetting to research storm in the second one. I won't congratulate to g5 because I think he actually played bad (going for blind, unsafe builds without having a clue of what I was doing), but well in the end the mistake was mine trying to think I can compete in tournaments even though I always get nervous and ansious to the point of not being able to think logically at all.
I hate that kind of unmannered posts. Ok, you lost. Just stand it. He played better than you. Talking about having a "far superior preparation" or not congratulating, because "G5 played bad", is simply disrespectful. You won't win any friends talking like this.
I am not gonna state he played good if he played without scouting at all, nor I am gonna state he had a better preparation when he obviously didn't. Why is it unmannered? Have you even watched the replays?
G5s timing in game1 was nice... he hit cloud right before storm was finished. i'm not sure, if he would have won the game 30 seconds later (as storm was finished as he crossed clouds bridges). but it seemed to me that storm came pretty late for cloud though...
both of u were going blind game 1 (thats alittle part of the charm in pvp). none of u really checked out each other alot so g5 decided so cut probe and 2base while u mass probe and 3base... so it wasnt really just him who played unsafe. its pvp there is not really any "safe" build if ive understood this correctly from other toss users. g5 played better than u and he deserved to win and if u get nervous we still shouldn't take any credits away from g5
if ur nervous u should figure out a way to get past that instead of giving up at playing these tournaments if u enjoy them so much
Grats to G5, though I think there was a good deal of luck involved (more specifically, unpredictable mistakes from Cloud's part). Cloud having a bunch of templars out but late/no storm research was something G5 couldn't possibly have known/worked into his strat, but it was a big factor in both games. Seemed like Cloud was definitely having a bad case of the nerves . Not to take too much credit away from G5. His army positioning was really impressive, particularly the game 1 concave at Cloud's bridge third. Good stuff.
yay g5!! lets go usa! I don't like cloud response in here cause even if it is 100% true its lose lose and still makes you look like a jerk regardless. Might as well just say u were nervous instead of taking something away from g5. EIther way.. Lets go usa!
G5 making blind decision? Wtf are you guys talking about? he had perma observer scounting every single move that ClouD made... (note the obsever following the shuttle) I thing G5 had better ingame instinct decision, those reavers sniping made the GG.
On January 07 2010 18:48 MorroW[MB] wrote: both of u were going blind game 1 (thats alittle part of the charm in pvp). none of u really checked out each other alot so g5 decided so cut probe and 2base while u mass probe and 3base... so it wasnt really just him who played unsafe. its pvp there is not really any "safe" build if ive understood this correctly from other toss users. g5 played better than u and he deserved to win and if u get nervous we still shouldn't take any credits away from g5
if ur nervous u should figure out a way to get past that instead of giving up at playing these tournaments if u enjoy them so much
You do not play pvp like that on destination because when you attack on the other side of the map the opponent has a better unit count than you and can defend on the bridge mid map (and even if he cut probes I did have same units as him plus 4 templars without storm lol, but I even failed to move these 4 decisive goons on my third along with my army). That's why I said he played bad on game one, because I think that's an obsolete tactic that can eventually work if your opponent pretty much fails at macroing or having their units together. Game 2 was even more ridicolous, nexus before robo on that map is totally meaningless because any reaver push or dt build rapes it pretty bad (especially because it's easier to scout on outsider and it's not a big map). The fact I played worse than him and he deserved victory more than me as how bad I played is a fact I am not denying at all. It's just hard to bear the frustration of playing at half your capabilities in tournaments you should do better than you do in your standard practice games. That said I still wish g5 good luck against Flaf in the next round, I obviously just felt like sharing my opinion about this and it's not meant to be a personal attack against him.
G5 fighting! Quite a nice series, fun. Cloud had clearly better macro and hence a macro advantage all the time in both games, but lost to G5's superior micro. (alright, G5's timing was perfect in game 1, attacking just before the storm research finishing. Luck or gamesense?:-p But in game 2, just great micro, both with the probe defense several times, and constantly sniping the reavers of Cloud)
ggs G5 is actually one of the few people who could eliminate ret without me feeling bad about it pvz scout micro gogo
On January 07 2010 18:19 iG.ClouD wrote: It was very frustrating, I play so bad in tournaments. My preparation this time was far superior to g5 but I get too nervous and make shitty decisions, like making 4 templars before researching storm in the first game or even forgetting to research storm in the second one. I won't congratulate to g5 because I think he actually played bad (going for blind, unsafe builds without having a clue of what I was doing), but well in the end the mistake was mine trying to think I can compete in tournaments even though I always get nervous and ansious to the point of not being able to think logically at all.
I hate that kind of unmannered posts. Ok, you lost. Just stand it. He played better than you. Talking about having a "far superior preparation" or not congratulating, because "G5 played bad", is simply disrespectful. You won't win any friends talking like this.
I am not gonna state he played good if he played without scouting at all, nor I am gonna state he had a better preparation when he obviously didn't. Why is it unmannered? Have you even watched the replays?
Congratulating someone for advancing over you is not equal to saying he played good, its basic manners and accepting defeat. (and actually, he played better than you in the series, thats why he won.) Also, if you can compare your preparations without actually seeing G5's, i guess he can might as well counter your builds without actually scouting them. (seriously though, in the interview he says he practiced with and got tips from Nony and White-Ra. Who other better foreign protosses to turn to?) Please be a little more respectful, even though you must be super-upset for having a very hard time staying calm and focused in tourneys, I understand it must suck big time. You still have a large amount of fans, dont do this to them.
On January 07 2010 18:23 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I'm going to let cloud finish here, but G5 had one of the best PvP probe cuts of recent TSL2 history.
lolololol
I can understand Clouds position though, I can see the points he makes and watching the games its obvious that it must have been frustrating as hell though I dont think thats a reason not to congratulate. But I mean if youre this nervous here, what are the chances of beating someone like ret anyways...
Actually, after watching a bunch of Cloud's replays in the pack, I think it's a tad better for Flaf to face G5. I've seen some sick games by Cloud vs people I think are (were) a bit better than Flaf in ZvP.
So you know. Grats, G5. Sorry you lost, Cloud. Go Fluffy!
In my opinion G5 was very lucky in both games, as he was basically all-in due to his probe count. It was cheese, I feel really bad for Cloud. In the first game his psi storm finished too late and in the second game, he fucked up his goon micro reaaaaally hard. I wondered why Cloud didn't go for smth like 3 gate or 4 gate when he saw G5's fe and expoed himself instead?
On January 07 2010 18:19 iG.ClouD wrote: It was very frustrating, I play so bad in tournaments. My preparation this time was far superior to g5 but I get too nervous and make shitty decisions, like making 4 templars before researching storm in the first game or even forgetting to research storm in the second one. I won't congratulate to g5 because I think he actually played bad (going for blind, unsafe builds without having a clue of what I was doing), but well in the end the mistake was mine trying to think I can compete in tournaments even though I always get nervous and ansious to the point of not being able to think logically at all.
I hate that kind of unmannered posts. Ok, you lost. Just stand it. He played better than you. Talking about having a "far superior preparation" or not congratulating, because "G5 played bad", is simply disrespectful. You won't win any friends talking like this.
I am not gonna state he played good if he played without scouting at all, nor I am gonna state he had a better preparation when he obviously didn't. Why is it unmannered? Have you even watched the replays?
I know exactly what you mean here cloud no offense to G5 what so ever but Cloud played superior to G5 in both games. Better probe production, better timings, cleaner mechanics etc but the one thing which G5 did better was engage every battle perfectly. It was beautiful to watch, but man it must have sucked for you cloud =[. If G5 wants to give ret a run for his money he's really going to need to smooth over his game and bring his mechanics up to par. Here's hoping he can
Im feeling sad cause the things that lost Cloud the game were so slim and little.. Game 2 for example his unit positioning was so bad He was better at everything until this battle and suddenly his zealots run one after the other and his units were not well spread
+ at one attack focusing on the nexus would have maybe been gg as well
To be honest I totally get what Cloud is saying
Basicaly G5 didnt play particulary amazing at all. Its just that Cloud made a few bad decision and G5 really just kinda got a gift here. I mean did u see how high in the tech tree Cloud was compared to G5 ? The unit count ? Man I hate to say it but all that lost it for Cloud were those very very sloppy fights.. and that is frustrating as hell. Basicaly Cloud was better in every aspect of the game except one and thats that...
if your control and positioning and unit choice are bad enough to lose multiple fights while you're up 90 supply to 60 something is seriously wrong. they both made mistakes. cloud's were alot fuckin bigger. how did he deserve to win?
finished watching first game - SO SAD! i'm more impressed by cloud pulling of a nony than g5s build order. actually cloud was slightly ahead when he messed it up.
On January 07 2010 21:26 IdrA wrote: if your control and positioning and unit choice are bad enough to lose multiple fights while you're up 90 supply to 60 something is seriously wrong. they both made mistakes. cloud's were alot fuckin bigger. how did he deserve to win?
No one is saying I deserve to win, when you play that bad all you deserve is to die. Seriously though, I can't just handle the pressure. I'll keep playing and maybe I'll stream my games, but I'm not expecting to do anything in tournaments anymore.
You played really well man. It was so close and there were a few times (especially in game 2) that I thought you had it. Really was hoping for you to snipe that nexus there. Oh well, good luck in the future and hoping you start streaming soon!
Congrats g5 nice concaves, was slightly disappointed in the quality of the games but I guess the pressure of TSL showed, and those that can handle it will go far.
On January 07 2010 18:19 iG.ClouD wrote: It was very frustrating, I play so bad in tournaments. My preparation this time was far superior to g5 but I get too nervous and make shitty decisions, like making 4 templars before researching storm in the first game or even forgetting to research storm in the second one. I won't congratulate to g5 because I think he actually played bad (going for blind, unsafe builds without having a clue of what I was doing), but well in the end the mistake was mine trying to think I can compete in tournaments even though I always get nervous and ansious to the point of not being able to think logically at all.
I hate that kind of unmannered posts. Ok, you lost. Just stand it. He played better than you. Talking about having a "far superior preparation" or not congratulating, because "G5 played bad", is simply disrespectful. You won't win any friends talking like this.
I am not gonna state he played good if he played without scouting at all, nor I am gonna state he had a better preparation when he obviously didn't. Why is it unmannered? Have you even watched the replays?
Nice that the TSL is on! I don't mind one bit that this got played pre-schedule, it's an excellent teaser.
There's definately some merit to what Cloud is saying, it just doesn't mean he was more deserving of a win (I know he never claimed to be). Also has to be considered that staying calm under pressure is an important skill as well in all competitive games - if Cloud lost due to him being too nervous that also points to G5 being the better player in this aspect.
I guess the point is just that there's two sides to each story, and one doesn't have to be false for the other to be true.
Can't fully agree with what Plexa says. Cloud had better timing? Timing was against him both when G5 attacked his 3rd in game 1 and when the fight in game 2 occured before storm research was done. You may want to attribute this to either G5's timing or his luck, but it doesn't have to be one or the other.
GGs (even if imperfect), gongrats to G5, and yay! - go TSL2!
On January 07 2010 21:26 IdrA wrote: if your control and positioning and unit choice are bad enough to lose multiple fights while you're up 90 supply to 60 something is seriously wrong. they both made mistakes. cloud's were alot fuckin bigger. how did he deserve to win?
No one is saying I deserve to win, when you play that bad all you deserve is to die. Seriously though, I can't just handle the pressure. I'll keep playing and maybe I'll stream my games, but I'm not expecting to do anything in tournaments anymore.
Didn't Flash have to take medication at one point because he was so nervous? Look at him now. I don't think this is a good enough excuse to quit playing tournaments.
On January 07 2010 21:10 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: pretty loose definition of 'played better' given the priority list in PvP Plexa
yes but what i mean is G5's mistakes are a lot harder to fix than the ones Cloud made.
The mistakes you listed of G5 are pretty nonsense though: worse probe production? If you read his interview you would see he purposefully cut probes. Worse timings? His timing in game 1 outright won him the game. Worse mechanics? They seemed pretty even to me.
Loosing Cloud in tournaments will suck, he's a great player overall. Like everyone is saying eaven G5 in interview ClouD had better unit count and better econo. Just bad attack timing and bad decisions. I can understand poeple having problemes under pressure, it probably is very hard to play when you are so stressed or not thinking clearly.
Well GG to G5 on this, got to give it to him, your attacks were great and micro was awesome.
On January 07 2010 18:19 iG.ClouD wrote: It was very frustrating, I play so bad in tournaments. My preparation this time was far superior to g5 but I get too nervous and make shitty decisions, like making 4 templars before researching storm in the first game or even forgetting to research storm in the second one. I won't congratulate to g5 because I think he actually played bad (going for blind, unsafe builds without having a clue of what I was doing), but well in the end the mistake was mine trying to think I can compete in tournaments even though I always get nervous and ansious to the point of not being able to think logically at all.
I hate that kind of unmannered posts. Ok, you lost. Just stand it. He played better than you. Talking about having a "far superior preparation" or not congratulating, because "G5 played bad", is simply disrespectful. You won't win any friends talking like this.
I am not gonna state he played good if he played without scouting at all, nor I am gonna state he had a better preparation when he obviously didn't. Why is it unmannered? Have you even watched the replays?
I know exactly what you mean here cloud no offense to G5 what so ever but Cloud played superior to G5 in both games. Better probe production, better timings, cleaner mechanics etc but the one thing which G5 did better was engage every battle perfectly. It was beautiful to watch, but man it must have sucked for you cloud =[. If G5 wants to give ret a run for his money he's really going to need to smooth over his game and bring his mechanics up to par. Here's hoping he can
Yea I think this is a pretty baseless comment. G5 played better in the areas that counted.
On January 07 2010 18:48 MorroW[MB] wrote: both of u were going blind game 1 (thats alittle part of the charm in pvp). none of u really checked out each other alot so g5 decided so cut probe and 2base while u mass probe and 3base... so it wasnt really just him who played unsafe. its pvp there is not really any "safe" build if ive understood this correctly from other toss users. g5 played better than u and he deserved to win and if u get nervous we still shouldn't take any credits away from g5
if ur nervous u should figure out a way to get past that instead of giving up at playing these tournaments if u enjoy them so much
You do not play pvp like that on destination because when you attack on the other side of the map the opponent has a better unit count than you and can defend on the bridge mid map (and even if he cut probes I did have same units as him plus 4 templars without storm lol, but I even failed to move these 4 decisive goons on my third along with my army). That's why I said he played bad on game one, because I think that's an obsolete tactic that can eventually work if your opponent pretty much fails at macroing or having their units together. Game 2 was even more ridicolous, nexus before robo on that map is totally meaningless because any reaver push or dt build rapes it pretty bad (especially because it's easier to scout on outsider and it's not a big map). The fact I played worse than him and he deserved victory more than me as how bad I played is a fact I am not denying at all. It's just hard to bear the frustration of playing at half your capabilities in tournaments you should do better than you do in your standard practice games. That said I still wish g5 good luck against Flaf in the next round, I obviously just felt like sharing my opinion about this and it's not meant to be a personal attack against him.
I'm a little sad that ClouD got knocked out so early =(, was hoping to see him make it further. But never the less, I have to give credit where it's due. Congrats G5!!!
G5 is just a straight up baller. Whenever I watch him I keep seeing this indescribable ability to just win. I reckon if he got his mechanics up to scratch he could be a sensational player.
One game in and already this is epic. I couldn't be more hyped; TSL time FUCK YEAH!
I dont get why in game 2 Cloud didn't ram his zealot army into G5's nat. IMO he woulda won, since if his zeals had run non-stop, they woulda arrived when G5 had like 8 goons. 14-16 zeals > 8 goons. Oh, and the rvr wasn't out yet, so zeals coulda raped the nat nexus by the time the rvr was out... unfortunate for cloud.
On January 07 2010 21:11 IdrA wrote: this is the person who put shine[kal] in 4th place in a ranking of starcraft players. you cant really expect him to understand anything at all.
Man I'd love to see you do the Power Rank for once (No sarcasm)
On January 07 2010 21:11 IdrA wrote: this is the person who put shine[kal] in 4th place in a ranking of starcraft players. you cant really expect him to understand anything at all.
Man I'd love to see you do the Power Rank for once (No sarcasm)
Yeah, I'd pay to read that thread. Purely to see the abuse others get when they inevitably disagree. The entire population of Sen'Jin Village would migrate to the thread within minutes. (+10 nerd points if you get that)
On January 07 2010 21:38 iG.ClouD wrote: No one is saying I deserve to win, when you play that bad all you deserve is to die. Seriously though, I can't just handle the pressure. I'll keep playing and maybe I'll stream my games, but I'm not expecting to do anything in tournaments anymore.
The trouble one might have is that you don't even care to congratulate. You actually go out on a limb to not congratulate, which seems weak and suggests to me that you still think that it's all about you, ... which further suggests that the right man won the game. Anyway, good luck with all your future endavours.
I don't see what is so controversial about what Plexa said. I'm actually surprised that some people seem to think that G5 systematically outplayed ClouD. G5 didn't win because he pulled off a brilliant display of gamesense and build order engineering. He won simply because ClouD didn't execute proper battle micro. GG.
yea, g5 positioned perfectly before every battle and let cloud engage and cloud didn't bother positioning prior to battles.. couple that with forgetting/getting storm too late in both games and it doesn't matter if your opening is far superior.
not g5's fault that cloud played badly though so congratulations are still in order.
On January 08 2010 01:13 ProTech_MediC wrote: I don't see what is so controversial about what Plexa said. I'm actually surprised that some people seem to think that G5 systematically outplayed ClouD. G5 didn't win because he pulled off a brilliant display of gamesense and build order engineering. He won simply because ClouD didn't execute proper battle micro. GG.
indeed man, Cloud was better at producing probe, units, buildings but attacking wrong cost him both games possitioning won both game for G5
On January 08 2010 01:13 ProTech_MediC wrote: I don't see what is so controversial about what Plexa said. I'm actually surprised that some people seem to think that G5 systematically outplayed ClouD. G5 didn't win because he pulled off a brilliant display of gamesense and build order engineering. He won simply because ClouD didn't execute proper battle micro. GG.
I think it is a little controversial cause he's pretty much saying that g5 won despite having played worse, which he didn't. He played better than cloud and even cloud agrees with that.
On January 08 2010 01:13 ProTech_MediC wrote: I don't see what is so controversial about what Plexa said. I'm actually surprised that some people seem to think that G5 systematically outplayed ClouD. G5 didn't win because he pulled off a brilliant display of gamesense and build order engineering. He won simply because ClouD didn't execute proper battle micro. GG.
indeed man, Cloud was better at producing probe, units, buildings but attacking wrong cost him both games possitioning won both game for G5
Are you sure? The interview reveals G5 was cutting probes. Even though Cloud had a good econ advantage game 2, G5 had similar pop the whole game.
Positioning may have been a small factor in game 2, but i think micro and decision making were greater. As for game 1, G5 attacked the third he didnt know about at the perfect time, before storm completed.
On January 08 2010 03:25 FlameSworD wrote: game 1 super boring game 2 cloud just choked if he waited even for those 4 goons and reaver he woulda got natural
I am sad for Cloud, because his PvP was always briliant and these games didn't show it. Game 2 was easy win if Cloud just waited for reaver/s and time attack G5's natural with good micro management. Game 1 was pretty even, but 1 battle decided (forgeting storm).
Ricjames he lost just move on, G5 is a great player anything can happen vs G5 iknow from own experience.. Im sad that cloud lost but G5 is a good player..
when I watched the 2nd game I thought to myself the whole time "how the hell is g5 gonna win this", but he did it and im glad ^^ (been spoiled the results before watching )
Cloud seemed to be the superior macro player, but he lost both games due to poor decisionmaking and bad luck. Got to feel that the force was with G5 this time.
First game he didnt use a single storm despite having a lot of templars with energy. Did he forget to research? (storms didnt come until after he already lost)
Second game he also made a lot of templars wasting all his gas forcing him to make mass zlots and cut goons, and then he morphs all his templars into archons. WTF? Did he manage to forget to research storm yet again? Even if he didnt research it, I dont think he had any reason to move out at that point.
Can see what Cloud is saying about pretty much throwing the games. He had better build orders but both games were lost to poor decision makings and positioning.
Game 1: Trying to save the right expansion (credit to G5 for timing) + slow storm. Extremely bad positioning, should have just pulled back and canceled nexus. Would have to go back and watch but at that point, I don't think Cloud would have won that battle with better positioning anyway.
Game 2: Could have killed that nexus and gotten out with his army more or less intact. Mid-game was more even due to the fact that G5 was running on 2 nexus to 1 for some time. After surviving G5's little push, Cloud should have just sat on 3 bases and go for map control.
Hindsight is 20/20 though. G5's timing and positioning overcame slightly worse build orders. Congrats.
Game1 10min attack: g5-12z/20g cloud- 13z/15g/4ht no storm I quite like mass goon/speedz 10min attack. With 5gate->citadel, 1gas only and cut probes a bit one can attack with ~20g/20z. This is a really safe way to play the midgame to make sure you don't get out massed, though you may be out teched. Going for temp tech means spending 150/200 on archives, 100 on 2nd assim, 200/200 on storm, 100/300 for 2ht at least. Translate gas to possible mins and that makes >1000min cost just for first 2storms. Defensive storm player has some setup advantage and travel distance though. But g5 did attack the 3rd a bit blind. Cloud had better macro overall, but bad positioning when it mattered, less units, no storm. Units is what matters most. Game 2, cloud actually completes his 3rd this time, but again no storm, and units is what matters most. I like watching both players, and I can see why cloud is frustrated, but such is starcraft.
I really liked G5s play. Yeah, he isn't exactly a macro machine, but he makes the right decisions. And as shown, that is far more important. I mean wtf he almost never lost a battle. Sheer luck?
The reason it's stupid to cut probes on desti is because getting into a good position before battle is really hard. The natural is virtually unbreakable early mid game and this will in almost every game buy sufficient time for your macro advantage to kick in.
The secondmost important thing, once you're outside your natural, is controlling the middle bridges. An inferior army, both in composition and numbers, can crush any army in the process of crossing the bridges. Hell it'll even crush an army that has just crossed the bridge since that army will be all clumped up and the other army will have a perfect surround.
This is why I believe cloud claims to have been better prepared. G5's build on desti is just a dead end in higher level play. It had no specific timing. It merely relied on hoping his opponent was stupid enough to attack into him, or that is opponent was bad enough not to cover the bridges as though his life depended upon it.
With this said: Cloud was actually stupid (or nervous) enough not to cover the bridges. He was bad enough not to realise what G5 was doing (he should've been able to deduce enough with his observer intel, seeing the low probe count and enough of everything else). He was bad enough to keep 4 goons at each far corner of the map guarding against drops despite seeing what was going on.
Which means what exactly? It means he didn't make the connection in game. He didn't read his opponent's build correctly. He didn't conclude from the intel that all he needed to do was survive a few more minutes. He didn't recognise his opponents bad build.
Now this is one of the most frustrating feelings you can experience in brood war. You've played a game where your actions were tailored towards stopping a smart opponent, where you assumed your opponent was playing a smart game, where you tried to be on top and ahead of every little advanced and smart little trick or play your opponent might pull. Cloud puts 4 goons in each corner. In his mind G5 prolly cut some probes to storm or dt-drop earlier. Cloud has an observer watching G5's 3rd, which G5 appears to be taking like any normal and smart player, though slightly later than Cloud, which probably makes Cloud feel comfortable. Cloud also has an observer at one of the middle bridges. It sees G5 preparing to cross the bridge, it sees him cross the bridge.
But, Cloud seems mentally unprepared for such a "stupid" or rather "simple" play. In his attempt to counter any move a smart player would make -- any of the tens or hundreds of advanced moves his practice partners made -- he forgot about the very basics of PvP on destination. He forgot about the possibility of an opponent doing a so called "stupid" strategy. Nowhere in his mind did he expect for G5 to cross the bridges, and that's probably why it took him almost 10 seconds to react. Once he realised what was going on it was too late.
The reason these kinds of plays are so frustrating to let go is because you know you would never ever lose to it again given another chance. At least that's the immediate feeling that will overwhelm you after playing such a game. But in reality, you know you've lost to that "crap" before, and that every once in a while you need to be reminded of the fact that so called "stupid" builds still exist. Every once in a while you need to be reminded to pay attention to the basics. To not blindly assume that every possible variation of a build you're playing is within the standard variation of an optimal build for said map.
This "every once in a while"-game that's so important to have faced, every once in a while, will probably last you 200 future games of caution and paying close attention to the basics of both your own play and your opponents. What I'm guessing went wrong for Cloud, was that, in his training, and in his laddering, he hadn't had one of these "every once in a while"-games for a long time. And I'm telling you, there's no worse feeling than losing because you abandoned the basics of something you know by heart.
I know cloud is a good enough a player to know he should have had the bridges covered. To know that he pretty much gave away a game by overlooking the rudimentary basics. He even partially had the bridge covered with the observer (even though his army was out of position). But he simply didn't expect that move, it took him far too long to react to it even though he had ample warning from the correctly placed observer.
I'm not surprised G5 played that way if he talked the games over with white-ra prior to this. But white-ra works with multiple timings. Bust timings... contain timings... Mid game army bust timings. Usually all in one and the same game. One timing usually sets him up for pulling off the next succesfully. G5 didn't have any timings really. He just cut probes, played the game like a completely normal macro game. Sat 5-6 minutes hoping his opponent would attack. Cloud didn't, G5 realised he'd lose if he didn't attack soon (absolutely the right move by him). Prayed to god the bridges were clear, and by some miracle they were. Added bonus miracle: opponent's army was still scattered once he'd crossed the bridges. 1a2a3a4a'd and won. I'm not taking anything away from G5, but this simply wasn't a very sound game plan...
Get off Cloud's back. He acknowledges he didn't deserve to win, he made far too many mistakes for that. But he should still have the right to think his opponent played bad/stupid on a map.
LaLuSh , lol . "At a higher level it would not work". This is the higher level for foreign.
Analog for your long post: A Kung Fu Master engages a street gangster, and although the Kung Fu Master is GOSU, the street gangster pulls of a gun and shoots him, this way utilising one of the lowest strategies of battle ever. GET OVER IT. The Gangsta' lives, the Kung Fu Master dies.
Imagine getting CHEESED IN SOME PROGLEAGUE FINALS. Now THAT can be considered low. But not crossing a bridge and attacking at a point in time when it would sound STUPID for Cloud it's just smart not dumb. This is all about in StarCraft, surprising your enemy. Geeeesh!!
if A > B > C > A, then you shouldn't pick one thing out of that circular arrangement and call it the stupid one. if a build can't cover all possible responses to it, then it's risky. if it can, but it is executed poorly, then it deserves to lose. there was nothing stupid about g5's style of play. he was hitting the timing for containing his opponent which is a legit good play for desti. cloud should have done shuttle harrass
On January 08 2010 07:32 ceaRshaf wrote: LaLuSh , lol . "At a higher level it would not work". This is the higher level for foreign.
Analog for your long post: A Kung Fu Master engages a street gangster, and although the Kung Fu Master is GOSU, the street gangster pulls of a gun and shoots him, this way utilising one of the lowest strategies of battle ever. GET OVER IT. The Gangsta' lives, the Kung Fu Master dies.
Imagine getting CHEESED IN SOME PROGLEAGUE FINALS. Now THAT can be considered low. But not crossing a bridge and attacking at a point in time when it would sound STUPID for Cloud it's just smart not dumb. This is all about in StarCraft, surprising your enemy. Geeeesh!!
That's quite possibly the worst StarCraft analogy I've ever read.
The reason it's stupid to cut probes on desti is because getting into a good position before battle is really hard. The natural is virtually unbreakable early mid game and this will in almost every game buy sufficient time for your macro advantage to kick in.
The secondmost important thing, once you're outside your natural, is controlling the middle bridges. An inferior army, both in composition and numbers, can crush any army in the process of crossing the bridges. Hell it'll even crush an army that has just crossed the bridge since that army will be all clumped up and the other army will have a perfect surround.
This is why I believe cloud claims to have been better prepared. G5's build on desti is just a dead end in higher level play. It had no specific timing. It merely relied on hoping his opponent was stupid enough to attack into him, or that is opponent was bad enough not to cover the bridges as though his life depended upon it.
With this said: Cloud was actually stupid (or nervous) enough not to cover the bridges. He was bad enough not to realise what G5 was doing (he should've been able to deduce enough with his observer intel, seeing the low probe count and enough of everything else). He was bad enough to keep 4 goons at each far corner of the map guarding against drops despite seeing what was going on.
Which means what exactly? It means he didn't make the connection in game. He didn't read his opponent's build correctly. He didn't conclude from the intel that all he needed to do was survive a few more minutes. He didn't recognise his opponents bad build.
Now this is one of the most frustrating feelings you can experience in brood war. You've played a game where your actions were tailored towards stopping a smart opponent, where you assumed your opponent was playing a smart game, where you tried to be on top and ahead of every little advanced and smart little trick or play your opponent might pull. Cloud puts 4 goons in each corner. In his mind G5 prolly cut some probes to storm or dt-drop earlier. Cloud has an observer watching G5's 3rd, which G5 appears to be taking like any normal and smart player, though slightly later than Cloud, which probably makes Cloud feel comfortable. Cloud also has an observer at one of the middle bridges. It sees G5 preparing to cross the bridge, it sees him cross the bridge.
But, Cloud seems mentally unprepared for such a "stupid" or rather "simple" play. In his attempt to counter any move a smart player would make -- any of the tens or hundreds of advanced moves his practice partners made -- he forgot about the very basics of PvP on destination. He forgot about the possibility of an opponent doing a so called "stupid" strategy. Nowhere in his mind did he expect for G5 to cross the bridges, and that's probably why it took him almost 10 seconds to react. Once he realised what was going on it was too late.
The reason these kinds of plays are so frustrating to let go is because you know you would never ever lose to it again given another chance. At least that's the immediate feeling that will overwhelm you after playing such a game. But in reality, you know you've lost to that "crap" before, and that every once in a while you need to be reminded of the fact that so called "stupid" builds still exist. Every once in a while you need to be reminded to pay attention to the basics. To not blindly assume that every possible variation of a build you're playing is within the standard variation of an optimal build for said map.
This "every once in a while"-game that's so important to have faced, every once in a while, will probably last you 200 future games of caution and paying close attention to the basics of both your own play and your opponents. What I'm guessing went wrong for Cloud, was that, in his training, and in his laddering, he hadn't had one of these "every once in a while"-games for a long time. And I'm telling you, there's no worse feeling than losing because you abandoned the basics of something you know by heart.
I know cloud is a good enough a player to know he should have had the bridges covered. To know that he pretty much gave away a game by overlooking the rudimentary basics. He even partially had the bridge covered with the observer (even though his army was out of position). But he simply didn't expect that move, it took him far too long to react to it even though he had ample warning from the correctly placed observer.
I'm not surprised G5 played that way if he talked the games over with white-ra prior to this. But white-ra works with multiple timings. Bust timings... contain timings... Mid game army bust timings. Usually all in one and the same game. One timing usually sets him up for pulling off the next succesfully. G5 didn't have any timings really. He just cut probes, played the game like a completely normal macro game. Sat 5-6 minutes hoping his opponent would attack. Cloud didn't, G5 realised he'd lose if he didn't attack soon (absolutely the right move by him). Prayed to god the bridges were clear, and by some miracle they were. Added bonus miracle: opponent's army was still scattered once he'd crossed the bridges. 1a2a3a4a'd and won. I'm not taking anything away from G5, but this simply wasn't a very sound game plan...
Get off Cloud's back. He acknowledges he didn't deserve to win, he made far too many mistakes for that. But he should still have the right to think his opponent played bad/stupid on a map.
On January 08 2010 07:37 Liquid`NonY wrote: if A > B > C > A, then you shouldn't pick one thing out of that circular arrangement and call it the stupid one. if a build can't cover all possible responses to it, then it's risky. if it can, but it is executed poorly, then it deserves to lose. there was nothing stupid about g5's style of play. he was hitting the timing for containing his opponent which is a legit good play for desti. cloud should have done shuttle harrass
no offense but did u even watch the replay ? how has shuttle harass anything to do with the game and how it happened on desti !?
edit: i agree timing is not the real issue in those games
just look at the decisions and how bad his units were approaching the attack at the end of the game.. thats what lost it for cloud
so much analysis.. the players know what their mistakes were
simply put g5 got lucky in the first game(luck is a part of bw, his b.o woulda failed if cloud upped storm faster or defended the bridges.. there was no timing involved in this game at all) and outplayed cloud in the 2nd game(this and cloud's poor decision making)
On January 08 2010 07:37 Liquid`NonY wrote: if A > B > C > A, then you shouldn't pick one thing out of that circular arrangement and call it the stupid one. if a build can't cover all possible responses to it, then it's risky. if it can, but it is executed poorly, then it deserves to lose. there was nothing stupid about g5's style of play. he was hitting the timing for containing his opponent which is a legit good play for desti. cloud should have done shuttle harrass
no offense but did u even watch the replay ? how has shuttle harass anything to do with the game and how it happened on desti !?
the two basic choices for players in this map and matchup are shuttle harrass (while keeping army at your natural) and contain (keeping most of your army outside enemy natural, while the rest defends against shuttle harrass). these choices are good because of the bridges at the naturals.
cloud's decision to do neither is a difficult way to play if the opponent is going to fight for the middle. cloud's plan is a good counter against people who do shuttle harrass (block the harrass --> get a free expansion), but a bad counter against people who fight for the middle (opponent cuts probes for timing attack, shuttle never comes, all units gogogo take middle ez).
On January 08 2010 08:45 MaGic~PhiL wrote: just look at the decisions and how bad his units were approaching the attack at the end of the game.. thats what lost it for cloud
i'm only looking at the strategy and gameplan choices since the rotten idea that g5's strategy was stupid/simple was introduced. im sure if bisu played cloud's build, bisu would have won. but i'd watch that replay and think "g5's strat was a good counter. let's just clean up g5's little imperfections so he's on a level with bisu, and g5 would win that game."
god, how could cloud lose game 2? t.t game 1 was a nicely timed attack by g5 plus bad positioning by cloud but game 2 was so bad, 1a2a3a without any positioning, running in g5's well spread army backho style. g5 was clearly better
On January 08 2010 07:37 Liquid`NonY wrote: if A > B > C > A, then you shouldn't pick one thing out of that circular arrangement and call it the stupid one. if a build can't cover all possible responses to it, then it's risky. if it can, but it is executed poorly, then it deserves to lose. there was nothing stupid about g5's style of play. he was hitting the timing for containing his opponent which is a legit good play for desti. cloud should have done shuttle harrass
no offense but did u even watch the replay ? how has shuttle harass anything to do with the game and how it happened on desti !?
the two basic choices for players in this map and matchup are shuttle harrass (while keeping army at your natural) and contain (keeping most of your army outside enemy natural, while the rest defends against shuttle harrass). these choices are good because of the bridges at the naturals.
cloud's decision to do neither is a difficult way to play if the opponent is going to fight for the middle. cloud's plan is a good counter against people who do shuttle harrass (block the harrass --> get a free expansion), but a bad counter against people who fight for the middle (opponent cuts probes for timing attack, shuttle never comes, all units gogogo take middle ez).
On January 08 2010 08:45 MaGic~PhiL wrote: just look at the decisions and how bad his units were approaching the attack at the end of the game.. thats what lost it for cloud
i'm only looking at the strategy and gameplan choices since the rotten idea that g5's strategy was stupid/simple was introduced. im sure if bisu played cloud's build, bisu would have won. but i'd watch that replay and think "g5's strat was a good counter. let's just clean up g5's little imperfections so he's on a level with bisu, and g5 would win that game."
Perhaps a bad choice of words to call it stupid/simple. But I still regard it a weak build on desti because of the things you mentioned in your last post. Additionally, the manouverability shuttles give you on desti makes any sort of contain hard to pull off without the game turning chaotic on you, having to fraction your army into too many pieces and eventually getting rolled. Sacrificing tech early for a huge mass of units really limits your choices and that's why you wouldn't see bisu doing G5's build (meaning starting to cut probes THAT early and waiting THAT late to attack).
I don't really disagree with you though. Except for calling G5's (or "bisu's") strat a counter. It's a timing bust depending on the opponent being overly aggressive or the opponent being sloppy. It's a build 100% designed to wipe out the opponents army on a map where it, if your opponent caught on to your strat, should be hard to pull off.
By the time G5 decided to attack, I wouldn really call that a "timing for contain". Cloud had virtually caught up in unit count. He was safe to stroll around on his side -- had he only controlled the bridges or kept his army together. By that point any battle is pretty much game deciding. You don't really go around thinking about contains 13 minutes into the game (or whatever the timing was).
*: Anyway. I was, in my post, mostly trying to explain that feeling of dissapointment that I could empathise with in Cloud. Cloud's build or "strategy" in itself wasn't at fault or weak against what G5 did. Rather it was the fact that he failed to read G5's build correctly. That he forgot about the basics of Desti PvP. Even a player doing a standard build would have crushed Clouds army in that position. That's why I'm arguing the people in here claiming there was some kind of a brilliant timing attack involved.
It was a mistake... no more no less. G5 deserved it sure. Good timing attacks do exist on desti, sure (and bisu would prolly win if he pulled on of them). None of this means G5 played good or that his build was the reason behind the win.
G5 won, that's all that matters in the end. But that wasn't a timing attack countering a standard strategy. It was merely an attack slamming an army out of position.
desti was one of my courage maps, so i learned it from and practiced it with progamers, focusing on how to play safely in order to survive the crazy courage newbs. so maybe just take my word that cloud's build was riskier? maybe the execution is just confusing you, since cloud executed his build better (aside from the bad unit positioning), so it looked safer and better. g5's BO could be cleaned up a bit. but the basic idea behind it is solid, while cloud's is walking a very fine line... and now i have immense respect for incontrol, cuz after 2 posts i've already lost my patience.
all the strategy stuff aside, i agree with the empathy. my pvp is very similar to cloud's and i lose in similar ways sometimes. some gameplans have to be played perfectly in order to succeed and sometimes you dont see the holes until you've lost a game.
On January 08 2010 03:25 FlameSworD wrote: game 1 super boring game 2 cloud just choked if he waited even for those 4 goons and reaver he woulda got natural
did you watch the replays or?
couldnt watch after cloud sucks to bad at attacking
Yo if cloud didn't have poor scouting, poor micro with unit formations, didn't forget important things, he would of won the game! If I had 100 more apm and had better micro/macro and strategy i could be A+.
The main argument against mass unit build here is that the middle is bad to pass on destination. I suppose I agree that since middle is easy to defend the faster techer should be able to stuff the mass attack player in a "black sheep wall" world, and then have a bit of an advantage. But that is simply not what happened, and live games have a lot of variation. G5 went on the offensive and nothing was standing in his way. Cloud had ob around, but it was not giving a clear view of g5 army. Cloud probably did not even see the blip from units moving across the bridge, and did not react fast enough. Even if he did he would probably have lost the battle due to having fewer units, if not the game at least.
LaLuSh puts a lot of thoughts to Cloud that are reasonable, but we don't know and cloud is not coming in here confirming it, and its hard to recall exactly what you were thinking during the game exactly. Its understandable to be annoyed when you feel you are playing a bit poor due to nerves, and you lose in a chancy situation where you don't quite scout the other guy attacking. Oh well, but thats all it is, and that is starcraft.
BTW we do have a bisu rep on this map vs best. Bisu goes relatively fast dt drop after expo and contains best at nat ~9min. Best expos and breaks out though back side. And its a long game. Note how both go for 2archons before storm though.
So much drama when I just say I can't congratulate because I thought this set of games was bad. Basically G5 played strategically bad and my management moves were very bad. I do not shake hands after a live game if I think it was shitty, so I don't understand why I should do it online. I was actually litterary shaking while playing, and it doesn't get better anytime I play in a tournament against a player I am confident to win against. There's people arguing and even trolling in this thread, but really you can't blame me for telling my honest opinion since G5 did the same in a post game interview.
About the game analysis going on up in the thread, I think Lalush pointed pretty much what happened, even if I felt it slightly different. I am actually a very passive player. Everything I do in any matchup is to try and counter my opponent build or strategy and eventually overrun him later with better economy or position. I almost never employ aggressive tactics if I can't see what the opponent is doing, pretty much because it's the same as casting a dice. In the destination game, I saw his gate count when I needed to see it and it was the same as mine, I and had an obs right where I needed it in mid game, to see if G5 was moving to my side of the map. The fact I failed to react at all was not because I was not expecting it, it was just because I was mentally crumbling. Game 1 was still ok and G5 somehow used my poorly positioned army at his own advantage. Game 2 was completely retarded from both sides in pretty much every aspect.
Despite the negative attitudes expressed in this thread, I feel like I've learned a ton about PvP on Desti. Thanks to Lalush and Nony for giving us their perspectives!
Cloud also played ret that night (for fun) lost (expected) and had some choice words for ret.. I love cloud he is a friend of mine but his attitude has always sucked when it comes to losing. We used to watch him lecture the SHIT out of Media terrans after beating them and hearing complaints about imbalances.. it was a double sided sword cutting everyone in the room.. pretty fun to watch as a media zerg rofl
On January 08 2010 16:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Cloud also played ret that night (for fun) lost (expected) and had some choice words for ret.. I love cloud he is a friend of mine but his attitude has always sucked when it comes to losing. We used to watch him lecture the SHIT out of Media terrans after beating them and hearing complaints about imbalances.. it was a double sided sword cutting everyone in the room.. pretty fun to watch as a media zerg rofl
I don't think you even know what you are talking about. What bugged me about media terrans was the fact they insulted the shit out of me when they lost. Here I just said the games were played poorly and with ret I complained about the fact these new maps are too good for zerg against protoss. I don't understand how you can't see the difference here.
Again, you can't see the difference. Media terrans felt the need to insult, to try destroying the self exteem of other players when they lost games. If you want to list things regarded as BM I have a whole bunch for you aswell, but seriously pretty much the most of players feel the need to explain why they lost or disappoint when they do so, so why do you think this is something new or extremely offending? And why are you even speaking about this stuff in that manner after what you said to morrow not so long ago.
I'm just glad that ClouD is back to BW. <3 Cloud. Gratz G5.
Cloud don't beat yourself up over not performing well in tournaments. It's not a perpetual thing, and it's certainly not something that everyone is immune to (like ret in courage).
About the congratulations thing: it's just a formality thing that you should say to wish your opponent good luck and show good will despite losing the game (even if you're extremely mad). You don't necessarily have to actually feel that way, but it's something that has become standard and doing it prevents you from looking like a douchebag to other people (please say gg idra), similar to 'thank you'.
On January 08 2010 17:40 iG.ClouD wrote: Again, you can't see the difference. Media terrans felt the need to insult, to try destroying the self exteem of other players when they lost games. If you want to list things regarded as BM I have a whole bunch for you aswell, but seriously pretty much the most of players feel the need to explain why they lost or disappoint when they do so, so why do you think this is something new or extremely offending? And why are you even speaking about this stuff in that manner after what you said to morrow not so long ago.
oh you must be confused, I never said anything about me being manner or that I never give excuses.. I was just laughing cause you are here defending what you did/do as if it is just or correct in manner. It ain't.
Also you don't understand the Media discussion: They were pricks too. Not excusing them at all. Just you were as well.
Keep trying though cloud it is fun to watch you try and explain this and all the while talk about everyone else not understanding.
You are not "everyone else" Geoff. And I know you are just doing this to piss me off and because you like to troll on TL. I don't actually think you are stupid to the point of not understanding what other people say. In my opinion as long as I don't offend anyone I'm fine with it, and if I do I tend to apologize. That's pretty much it and I don't really feel the need to explain you why I act like I do. I actually did already, but you just forget stuff when it's convenient to create your beloved dramas on forums, so I don't see why I should keep answering your provocations.
hows he trying to create drama? you said you prepared better (which is obviously not the case as anyone who prepares for g5 at all knows hes completely willing to take risks, and the first thing you would have prepared for is probe cut timing rushes). you said he played bad, used risky builds, and got lucky. thats the exact same thing as calling someone a cheesy newbie.
On January 08 2010 18:11 IdrA wrote: hows he trying to create drama? you said you prepared better (which is obviously not the case as anyone who prepares for g5 at all knows hes completely willing to take risks, and the first thing you would have prepared for is probe cut timing rushes). you said he played bad, used risky builds, and got lucky. thats the exact same thing as calling someone a cheesy newbie.
Maybe in your vocabulary, in the pre match interview I said I respect G5 skills and I still do. That doesn't change the fact he played these 2 games bad, not as bad as me but not worth of congratulation either.
On January 08 2010 18:11 IdrA wrote: hows he trying to create drama? you said you prepared better (which is obviously not the case as anyone who prepares for g5 at all knows hes completely willing to take risks, and the first thing you would have prepared for is probe cut timing rushes). you said he played bad, used risky builds, and got lucky. thats the exact same thing as calling someone a cheesy newbie.
Maybe in your vocabulary, in the pre match interview I said I respect G5 skills and I still do. That doesn't change the fact he played these 2 games bad, not as bad as me but not worth of congratulation either.
lol so if i say you're good in an interview before a match and then call you a fuckin newbie afterwards its ok?
On January 08 2010 18:11 IdrA wrote: hows he trying to create drama? you said you prepared better (which is obviously not the case as anyone who prepares for g5 at all knows hes completely willing to take risks, and the first thing you would have prepared for is probe cut timing rushes). you said he played bad, used risky builds, and got lucky. thats the exact same thing as calling someone a cheesy newbie.
Maybe in your vocabulary, in the pre match interview I said I respect G5 skills and I still do. That doesn't change the fact he played these 2 games bad, not as bad as me but not worth of congratulation either.
lol so if i say you're good in an interview before a match and then call you a fuckin newbie afterwards its ok?
Yeah I know what a load of crap. How is lieing in the post match interview mannered? Oh you gave the cookie cutter "I respect my opponent" bullshit line before the game... that means you must be mannered?! Surely shaking hands after a game is more about manners than that.
Clearly you don't respect your opponent because you made it quite clear you rate your skills much higher than his after the match... and many at TL agree with you. Why not cut the crap.. you don't rate G5 that highly and you were suprised/upset that you didn't play your best and lost. At least I could respect someone who is honest.
Despite me being noob (10 years of bw) i have to say that G5 played badly with good micro and timing and Cloud played even worse. Didn't adapt to what G5 was doing and had awful positioning + micro. I still respect both players but Cloud a bit more, cause he really is better than G5 as many of us understand.
Hate to derail the drama, and respect to ClouD, but WOOHOO G5! Congrats! Now go show FlaF who has beaten GGPlay
Btw, as a G5 fan and a PvP fan I couldn't pass up casting this series if anyone is interested. Even if you don't like my casting you can mute it and have VODs to watch if you're too lazy for replays, heh.
Part 1, follow video responses through the series:
I understand where Cloud is getting at about not congratulating him on those games. I feel the same way if I lose because I was being retarded and my opponent was just "less retarded" that game. We both played like complete garbage, but he just so happen to won that game and you don't really want to say "GG" because it wasn't a good game the game was complete garbage, but I still say GG anyways because I'm trying to show proper respect and not come off as a douche.
It's sad this thread derailed like it did. Congrats on a fanastic win G5, ClouD is actually one of the best foreigners atm and has been practicing insanely much, anyone beating him is a great achievement.
On January 08 2010 22:09 ret wrote: It's sad this thread derailed like it did. Congrats on a fanastic win G5, ClouD is actually one of the best foreigners atm and has been practicing insanely much, anyone beating him is a great achievement.
oh shit, i think i agrees with u. He has practice a lot tho, but one of the best foreigner?
On January 08 2010 22:09 ret wrote: It's sad this thread derailed like it did. Congrats on a fanastic win G5, ClouD is actually one of the best foreigners atm and has been practicing insanely much, anyone beating him is a great achievement.
oh shit, i think i agrees with u. He has practice a lot tho, but one of the best foreigner?
One of the best could be top 5, top 10 or even top 100, it depends on your definition..
Too bad Cloud lost. I like his style. Nevertheless, I like G5 his style too. So it will be an interesting outcome in the group. But as a Dutchman I have to root for Ret.
On a sidenote: you guys are blowing this way out of its proportion. I think all that Cloud is trying to say is that he is frustrated because he lost and because of that he cant congratulate G5 with his win. A bad decision imo but if he feels that way, let him be. He stated that he respected G5 as a person and as a BW player. So no need for drama I think.
Now please, back on topic gentlemen, discuss the games! =)
On January 08 2010 20:28 Ricjames wrote: Despite me being noob (10 years of bw) i have to say that G5 played badly with good micro and timing and Cloud played even worse. Didn't adapt to what G5 was doing and had awful positioning + micro. I still respect both players but Cloud a bit more, cause he really is better than G5 as many of us understand.
I would argue that timing had almost nothing to do with G5's win. Actually, let's go with nothing. I will argue it had actually nothing to do with the win. Where's G5 to comment?
On January 08 2010 20:28 Ricjames wrote: Despite me being noob (10 years of bw) i have to say that G5 played badly with good micro and timing and Cloud played even worse. Didn't adapt to what G5 was doing and had awful positioning + micro. I still respect both players but Cloud a bit more, cause he really is better than G5 as many of us understand.
I would argue that timing had almost nothing to do with G5's win. Actually, let's go with nothing. I will argue it had actually nothing to do with the win. Where's G5 to comment?
While I don't agree with some peoples conception here that G5 was simply lucky that Cloud was playing bad (Which is kind of ridiculous), I don't see how one could argue that timing had nothing to do with G5's win. Here is a quote from the OP interview with G5:
"I cut probes throughout the game strategically to ensure that I would win the first decisive battle, whether it be him attacking me or me attacking him. Time passed long enough that I had to engage or I would lose due to his probe count."
Unless I am not quite understanding what you mean by timing, it seems clear that G5 knew that he must attack at that time or lose the game [much like any timing attack, wait too long and it loses it's effectiveness].
On January 08 2010 20:28 Ricjames wrote: Despite me being noob (10 years of bw) i have to say that G5 played badly with good micro and timing and Cloud played even worse. Didn't adapt to what G5 was doing and had awful positioning + micro. I still respect both players but Cloud a bit more, cause he really is better than G5 as many of us understand.
I would argue that timing had almost nothing to do with G5's win. Actually, let's go with nothing. I will argue it had actually nothing to do with the win. Where's G5 to comment?
While I don't agree with some peoples conception here that G5 was simply lucky that Cloud was playing bad (Which is kind of ridiculous), I don't see how one could argue that timing had nothing to do with G5's win. Here is a quote from the OP interview with G5:
"I cut probes throughout the game strategically to ensure that I would win the first decisive battle, whether it be him attacking me or me attacking him. Time passed long enough that I had to engage or I would lose due to his probe count."
Unless I am not quite understanding what you mean by timing, it seems clear that G5 knew that he must attack at that time or lose the game [much like any timing attack, wait too long and it loses it's effectiveness].
Just because you use the word time, it's not timing. G5 crossed the bridge and Cloud ran into him. There's no timing there. Unless G5 specifically built that army for that moment, in which case I apologize, but I'm very confident he didn't and just decided it was time to move out.
On January 08 2010 22:09 ret wrote: It's sad this thread derailed like it did.
i thought it has stayed on topic :o
Stating the opinion that flaf has better chances winning vs g5 than vs cloud because u think clouds pvz is better than g5s is totally fine and makes sense
In this case you're both dumb: Skela wrote an incomprehensible post that in no way could be interpreted in saying that flaf has a better chance of winning against g5 than against cloud. MaGic~PhiL, it is not Nony's fault that he misunderstood SkelA. It if SkelA's fault for not having a good grasp of the English language. Calling him dumb for that is... dumb.
Yea english is not my first language you calling me dumb because of that? Let me see you understand my native language then eh.. I asure you wont understand a word does this makes you a retard then ?
Its obvious that i ment that G5 has lower chances of wining FLaf than Cloud.... Last few matches i saw Flaf wining both White-ra and Infernal which i consider them 2 of the best pvz on the nonkorean scene .
On January 08 2010 20:28 Ricjames wrote: Despite me being noob (10 years of bw) i have to say that G5 played badly with good micro and timing and Cloud played even worse. Didn't adapt to what G5 was doing and had awful positioning + micro. I still respect both players but Cloud a bit more, cause he really is better than G5 as many of us understand.
I would argue that timing had almost nothing to do with G5's win. Actually, let's go with nothing. I will argue it had actually nothing to do with the win. Where's G5 to comment?
While I don't agree with some peoples conception here that G5 was simply lucky that Cloud was playing bad (Which is kind of ridiculous), I don't see how one could argue that timing had nothing to do with G5's win. Here is a quote from the OP interview with G5:
"I cut probes throughout the game strategically to ensure that I would win the first decisive battle, whether it be him attacking me or me attacking him. Time passed long enough that I had to engage or I would lose due to his probe count."
Unless I am not quite understanding what you mean by timing, it seems clear that G5 knew that he must attack at that time or lose the game [much like any timing attack, wait too long and it loses it's effectiveness].
Just because you use the word time, it's not timing. G5 crossed the bridge and Cloud ran into him. There's no timing there. Unless G5 specifically built that army for that moment, in which case I apologize, but I'm very confident he didn't and just decided it was time to move out.
his moveout timing was when his zeal speed finished
wow, motbob, chill out dude, no need to call people dumb. I perfectly understood what skela meant, i mean its not like he wrote something very difficult to understand. whether he`s right or not is another question.
regarding the games, I`m so sad that cloud lost and I hope that he really sticks around in the scene.
On January 08 2010 20:28 Ricjames wrote: Despite me being noob (10 years of bw) i have to say that G5 played badly with good micro and timing and Cloud played even worse. Didn't adapt to what G5 was doing and had awful positioning + micro. I still respect both players but Cloud a bit more, cause he really is better than G5 as many of us understand.
I would argue that timing had almost nothing to do with G5's win. Actually, let's go with nothing. I will argue it had actually nothing to do with the win. Where's G5 to comment?
While I don't agree with some peoples conception here that G5 was simply lucky that Cloud was playing bad (Which is kind of ridiculous), I don't see how one could argue that timing had nothing to do with G5's win. Here is a quote from the OP interview with G5:
"I cut probes throughout the game strategically to ensure that I would win the first decisive battle, whether it be him attacking me or me attacking him. Time passed long enough that I had to engage or I would lose due to his probe count."
Unless I am not quite understanding what you mean by timing, it seems clear that G5 knew that he must attack at that time or lose the game [much like any timing attack, wait too long and it loses it's effectiveness].
Just because you use the word time, it's not timing. G5 crossed the bridge and Cloud ran into him. There's no timing there. Unless G5 specifically built that army for that moment, in which case I apologize, but I'm very confident he didn't and just decided it was time to move out.
exactly, theres no timing involved unless g5 had a maphack to check out how much of cloud's storm upgrade was done in order to attack him.. he just happened to attack cloud when his storm tech wasnt done, when he started exping and while he had 4 goons out of position at his 2nd exp
its hard to have any type of timing in a pvp when the game turns into a macro game, especially on desti where probe cutting is pretty much useless (pvp timing/probe cuts are more important when the game is still 1base vs 1base and when u go for b.o's like a 1gate robo/exp/reav etc..)
On January 08 2010 20:28 Ricjames wrote: Despite me being noob (10 years of bw) i have to say that G5 played badly with good micro and timing and Cloud played even worse. Didn't adapt to what G5 was doing and had awful positioning + micro. I still respect both players but Cloud a bit more, cause he really is better than G5 as many of us understand.
I would argue that timing had almost nothing to do with G5's win. Actually, let's go with nothing. I will argue it had actually nothing to do with the win. Where's G5 to comment?
While I don't agree with some peoples conception here that G5 was simply lucky that Cloud was playing bad (Which is kind of ridiculous), I don't see how one could argue that timing had nothing to do with G5's win. Here is a quote from the OP interview with G5:
"I cut probes throughout the game strategically to ensure that I would win the first decisive battle, whether it be him attacking me or me attacking him. Time passed long enough that I had to engage or I would lose due to his probe count."
Unless I am not quite understanding what you mean by timing, it seems clear that G5 knew that he must attack at that time or lose the game [much like any timing attack, wait too long and it loses it's effectiveness].
Just because you use the word time, it's not timing. G5 crossed the bridge and Cloud ran into him. There's no timing there. Unless G5 specifically built that army for that moment, in which case I apologize, but I'm very confident he didn't and just decided it was time to move out.
I shouldn't have bolded that sentence, it makes what I was trying to say confusing. What I mean was that G5 stated that he was cutting probes to gain an army advantage over Cloud. That advantage doesn't last for the whole game, there is a timing in which that cut will benefit G5 and allow him more units, however after that certain point, he would lose the advantage. G5 stated that he realized this timing was coming to a close, and that he attacked because of this.
IDK if that's considered timing by everyone, I would consider it so. It's much like any timing attack IMO, you are doing some build that will allow a window of opportunity in which you have the advantage, if you don't attack during that period, you will lose your advantage and gain a disadvantage. I suppose what's the debated is whether you would consider timing attacking at a very specific moment, and whether you would also considering timing to be a period of time in which the persons actions will give them the advantage.
Why keep discussing this when its over and done? Cloud lost anyways. pity for him that he lost and trained that much as he did. But now G5 won and went to the next round, cheer for him and just go on living. Just enjoy these TSL matchs like everyone else.
On January 09 2010 04:18 NiGoL wrote: Why keep discussing this when its over and done?
Because its the only series that's been played out, so we're going to analyze the replays into the ground...
..and start plenty of drama while we're at it.
yea "analyze" as much as u want, HE won and thats the end of it. Just be happy and move on like seriously? there are A LOT more games to be played in this tournament.
On January 09 2010 03:48 SkelA wrote: Yea english is not my first language you calling me dumb because of that? Let me see you understand my native language then eh.. I asure you wont understand a word does this makes you a retard then ?
Its obvious that i ment that G5 has lower chances of wining FLaf than Cloud.... Last few matches i saw Flaf wining both White-ra and Infernal which i consider them 2 of the best pvz on the nonkorean scene .
I didn't call you dumb in my post. This is getting pretty frustrating.
On January 08 2010 23:54 SkelA wrote: Ok there is a good chance of Flaf wining next match Cloud pvz alot better than G5.
it doesn't matter how good cloud's pvz is
On January 08 2010 22:09 ret wrote: It's sad this thread derailed like it did.
i thought it has stayed on topic :o
Stating the opinion that flaf has better chances winning vs g5 than vs cloud because u think clouds pvz is better than g5s is totally fine and makes sense
what a stupid response is this of yours ?
Seriously ?
as motbob pointed out, that isnt what skela wrote. i just read and responded to what he wrote. and why do you always have this disbelief? seriously? did you even watch the replay? what a stupid response is this of yours? give us a break.
On January 09 2010 03:48 SkelA wrote: Yea english is not my first language you calling me dumb because of that? Let me see you understand my native language then eh.. I asure you wont understand a word does this makes you a retard then ?
who are you talking to? nobody called you dumb. he called magic~phil dumb. just give up kid
On January 09 2010 04:02 mdb wrote:I perfectly understood what skela meant, i mean its not like he wrote something very difficult to understand.
in skela's sentence, if you replace "good" with "better" then it would make sense. huge difference in meaning between those two and there's never any instance where one can mean the other. so i dont see how it's so easy to understand. but if you read skela's post history, you'd familiarize yourself with his habit of writing nonsense. so you wouldnt think "oh he accidentally didnt use a comparative" but rather "where are some pins so i can gouge out my eyes"
Yay Drama! Gotta love the italianos. They get pissed off so easily. Carlo is no exception, however good he is at SCBW. Anyways, I can understand both sides of the argument. Cloud is extremely disappointed that he lost to something he could've easily beaten had he made better choices, though he must accept, it's his fault, not G5's.
well, macedonian and bulgarian languages are the same, so I guess thats why, the way he worded that sentence makes perfect sense to me. but nevertheless i still think its pretty clear what skela meant : cloud pvz > g5 pvz => flaf`s z has better chances against g5, rather than cloud.
But, after all its not that important, I feel dumb for arguing about this ^^
On January 09 2010 03:41 motbob wrote: In this case you're both dumb: Skela wrote an incomprehensible post that in no way could be interpreted in saying that flaf has a better chance of winning against g5 than against cloud. MaGic~PhiL, it is not Nony's fault that he misunderstood SkelA. It if SkelA's fault for not having a good grasp of the English language. Calling him dumb for that is... dumb.
Ok Im blind here or what???? You are calling either ME or Nony dumb so pls explain because my english skills are bad as you said yourself.
On January 08 2010 07:32 ceaRshaf wrote: This is the higher level for foreign.!
Well, then I had too high expectations I guess. This was terrible play by Cloud. It seems he just focused 100% on macro and didn't even watch the battles. He never even stormed many templars even though he had tons of energy and storm, annoyed me a lot. Felt like he surrendered before the game was over.
As for G5's play, well, I guess it was the perfect counter to Cloud's type of play - not giving him time. Still remains to see how good he is.
On January 08 2010 07:32 ceaRshaf wrote: This is the higher level for foreign.!
Well, then I had too high expectations I guess. This was terrible play by Cloud. It seems he just focused 100% on macro and didn't even watch the battles. He never even stormed many templars even though he had tons of energy and storm, annoyed me a lot. Felt like he surrendered before the game was over.
As for G5's play, well, I guess it was the perfect counter to Cloud's type of play - not giving him time. Still remains to see how good he is.
I think its more indicative of the pressure of the moment rather than just lack of ability, obviously Cloud doesn't usually forget storm in practice or something.
On January 08 2010 23:54 SkelA wrote: Ok there is a good chance of Flaf wining next match Cloud pvz alot better than G5.
it doesn't matter how good cloud's pvz is
On January 08 2010 22:09 ret wrote: It's sad this thread derailed like it did.
i thought it has stayed on topic :o
Stating the opinion that flaf has better chances winning vs g5 than vs cloud because u think clouds pvz is better than g5s is totally fine and makes sense
what a stupid response is this of yours ?
Seriously ?
as motbob pointed out, that isnt what skela wrote. i just read and responded to what he wrote. and why do you always have this disbelief? seriously? did you even watch the replay? what a stupid response is this of yours? give us a break.
On January 09 2010 03:48 SkelA wrote: Yea english is not my first language you calling me dumb because of that? Let me see you understand my native language then eh.. I asure you wont understand a word does this makes you a retard then ?
who are you talking to? nobody called you dumb. he called magic~phil dumb. just give up kid
On January 09 2010 04:02 mdb wrote:I perfectly understood what skela meant, i mean its not like he wrote something very difficult to understand.
in skela's sentence, if you replace "good" with "better" then it would make sense. huge difference in meaning between those two and there's never any instance where one can mean the other. so i dont see how it's so easy to understand. but if you read skela's post history, you'd familiarize yourself with his habit of writing nonsense. so you wouldnt think "oh he accidentally didnt use a comparative" but rather "where are some pins so i can gouge out my eyes"
Lol is there really an argument over what was said....
Its simply meaning that Because cloud has a better pvz than G5 in his opinion, he believes that G5 is going to lose the match. That's all that skela says
On January 08 2010 07:32 ceaRshaf wrote: This is the higher level for foreign.!
Well, then I had too high expectations I guess. This was terrible play by Cloud. It seems he just focused 100% on macro and didn't even watch the battles. He never even stormed many templars even though he had tons of energy and storm, annoyed me a lot. Felt like he surrendered before the game was over.
As for G5's play, well, I guess it was the perfect counter to Cloud's type of play - not giving him time. Still remains to see how good he is.
When I watched game 1 (assuming thats the one you are talking about) storm wasn't finished when he got attacked.
On January 08 2010 23:54 SkelA wrote: Ok there is a good chance of Flaf wining next match Cloud pvz alot better than G5.
it doesn't matter how good cloud's pvz is
On January 08 2010 22:09 ret wrote: It's sad this thread derailed like it did.
i thought it has stayed on topic :o
Stating the opinion that flaf has better chances winning vs g5 than vs cloud because u think clouds pvz is better than g5s is totally fine and makes sense
what a stupid response is this of yours ?
Seriously ?
as motbob pointed out, that isnt what skela wrote. i just read and responded to what he wrote. and why do you always have this disbelief? seriously? did you even watch the replay? what a stupid response is this of yours? give us a break.
On January 09 2010 03:48 SkelA wrote: Yea english is not my first language you calling me dumb because of that? Let me see you understand my native language then eh.. I asure you wont understand a word does this makes you a retard then ?
who are you talking to? nobody called you dumb. he called magic~phil dumb. just give up kid
On January 09 2010 04:02 mdb wrote:I perfectly understood what skela meant, i mean its not like he wrote something very difficult to understand.
in skela's sentence, if you replace "good" with "better" then it would make sense. huge difference in meaning between those two and there's never any instance where one can mean the other. so i dont see how it's so easy to understand. but if you read skela's post history, you'd familiarize yourself with his habit of writing nonsense. so you wouldnt think "oh he accidentally didnt use a comparative" but rather "where are some pins so i can gouge out my eyes"
Lol is there really an argument over what was said....
Its simply meaning that Because cloud has a better pvz than G5 in his opinion, he believes that G5 is going to lose the match. That's all that skela says
What are you saying differently than what's already been said? What's the point of your post?
See how PvP makes everybody crazy and stupid. Surely everyone can empathize with Cloud now that we see how crazy people post after just watching PvP, not even playing it. Except me of course ezly
On January 08 2010 23:54 SkelA wrote: Ok there is a good chance of Flaf wining next match Cloud pvz alot better than G5.
it doesn't matter how good cloud's pvz is
On January 08 2010 22:09 ret wrote: It's sad this thread derailed like it did.
i thought it has stayed on topic :o
Stating the opinion that flaf has better chances winning vs g5 than vs cloud because u think clouds pvz is better than g5s is totally fine and makes sense
what a stupid response is this of yours ?
Seriously ?
as motbob pointed out, that isnt what skela wrote. i just read and responded to what he wrote. and why do you always have this disbelief? seriously? did you even watch the replay? what a stupid response is this of yours? give us a break.
On January 09 2010 03:48 SkelA wrote: Yea english is not my first language you calling me dumb because of that? Let me see you understand my native language then eh.. I asure you wont understand a word does this makes you a retard then ?
who are you talking to? nobody called you dumb. he called magic~phil dumb. just give up kid
On January 09 2010 04:02 mdb wrote:I perfectly understood what skela meant, i mean its not like he wrote something very difficult to understand.
in skela's sentence, if you replace "good" with "better" then it would make sense. huge difference in meaning between those two and there's never any instance where one can mean the other. so i dont see how it's so easy to understand. but if you read skela's post history, you'd familiarize yourself with his habit of writing nonsense. so you wouldnt think "oh he accidentally didnt use a comparative" but rather "where are some pins so i can gouge out my eyes"
Lol is there really an argument over what was said....
Its simply meaning that Because cloud has a better pvz than G5 in his opinion, he believes that G5 is going to lose the match. That's all that skela says
What are you saying differently than what's already been said? What's the point of your post?
See how PvP makes everybody crazy and stupid. Surely everyone can empathize with Cloud now that we see how crazy people post after just watching PvP, not even playing it. Except me of course ezly
On January 08 2010 07:32 ceaRshaf wrote: This is the higher level for foreign.!
Well, then I had too high expectations I guess. This was terrible play by Cloud. It seems he just focused 100% on macro and didn't even watch the battles. He never even stormed many templars even though he had tons of energy and storm, annoyed me a lot. Felt like he surrendered before the game was over.
As for G5's play, well, I guess it was the perfect counter to Cloud's type of play - not giving him time. Still remains to see how good he is.
When I watched game 1 (assuming thats the one you are talking about) storm wasn't finished when he got attacked.
No I was talking about game 2. In the end I saw 3-4 templars and since he had speedlots I really thought he had storm as well.
But now when I watch the replay I see he canceled storm 5 seconds after he started it... too bad, would have won him the game. Weird decisions anyway:
-upgrade legs as soon as citadel finishes when he doesn't use the speedlots anyway (which delayed storm/dt) -morph 2 archons when G5 didn't even have citadel and just ~5 zealots -move out without observer when G5's observer sees everything
Then Cloud comes here and comments about G5 not scouting... dude, he had an observer on your forces for ages whereas you had nothing in his base.
LaLuSh, yeah Cloud's build was chosen pretty well given the map (game1) and the match up, and yes he did execute it correctly, but from your posts it seems like it's some kind of an achievement ... it's not. No offence but even a properly trained monkey can execute a build order, what matters is what you do with it, how you react to your opponent and how you control everything. What matters is how you >play< the game, not how good you are at theorycraft or practice. Practice means nothing if all it does for you is put you in tunnel vision mode, it means nothing if you prepare for a handful of scenarios and can't react if something doesn't go your way. Splitting your army to look for drops that you're not even sure exist when you can clearly see that your opponent is going for all in push is a rookie mistake, so forgive me if I laugh at Cloud's claims that his prep was better. I will also laugh at his overall behaviour in this thread, it's not a losers' place to say that his opponent played very simple or risky rounds, or this or that, his place is analyzing his mistakes and learning from them, nothing more, nothing less. That's the kind of mentality someone who truly wishes to excel at his game should show. So no, I don't agree that G5's play was bad or even average, in fact nearly all his decisions were dead on, his control was also very good and he deserved to win hands down. Both players can always arrange a rematch if Cloud can't hold down his nerves in high stakes games, my money will still be on G5.
Regardless of how Cloud played (obviously not up to his full capability), i believe you have to give credit to G5. Even if G5's play did not impress you, just remember that a. this is a foreigner tournament, not a korean one, and b. G5 made the top 48 on the TSL ladder, and has now moved on to round two in qualifiers... that takes skill
If it really gets that bad during tournaments, Cloud, you should have a beer or two. Seriously, I really think that would help.
As for not shaking hands when you play shit, well that's just silly and I hope you'll understand that...although I'm not surprised since italians arent very nice people, no offence.
Cloud. I agree with you. I think even by looking at your base design (eg. look at destination game, clouds base vs g5's base, g5's is messy) you can tell who is more prepared. In the end all the theory/knowledge doesn't count if you do not apply it, you failed to have storm, you lost. Sorry. Next time with storm you will win. That is it. No second chances this time bro. I think you are great though, just letting you know that there are mistakes you made.
i find it interesting, starcraft is the only competitive gaming community i have ever seen where a top player can lose a match (not just here, many other examples)... then "he played so bad, i expected him to play smart and this is why i lost he is a bad player" instead of realizing that he got outplayed based on that very expectation right there.
and being nervous isn't an excuse, that's part of the skill in any tournament game.
On January 07 2010 21:11 IdrA wrote: this is the person who put shine[kal] in 4th place in a ranking of starcraft players. you cant really expect him to understand anything at all.
On January 10 2010 18:10 alexpnd wrote: Cloud. I agree with you. I think even by looking at your base design (eg. look at destination game, clouds base vs g5's base, g5's is messy) you can tell who is more prepared. In the end all the theory/knowledge doesn't count if you do not apply it, you failed to have storm, you lost. Sorry. Next time with storm you will win. That is it. No second chances this time bro. I think you are great though, just letting you know that there are mistakes you made.
PvP is probably the P MU where building placement is the least important of all. If he was planning on a 2 base semi-allin probe cut build, he didn't need to fit in 20 Gateways. This is a silly thing to say. Maybe G5 figured that other things would be more important to prepare for than making your base tidy? Maybe he macroes better when his base is slightly messy?