mod edit: beware! obviously there will be GSL spoilers
All the blames for cheesy strategies in T vs Z are on fire at least in Korea
TSL_Rain, who knocked out Nestea in GSL3 quarter final, is taking all the blames and shames from Korean SC2 communities for not being as qualified as Nestea overall and advancing to semi final with only cheesy all-ins.
He has reached semi final beating all the opponents mostly by 2 rax or 4 rax with scv+bunker all ins since his first round (but not all games).
Interestingly, TSL_Rain immediately posted "APOLOGY" on the biggest SC2 community in Korea. What he says was mainly about not showing as good games as the expectation for quarter final and matchups with Nestea. He certainly didn't want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that.
His coach in team TSL responded to it right away. 'Don't blame but cheer him up for his marine micro against the best defensive zerg 'Nestea' was his point.
Okay, The following is what I think about the issue.
In T v Z, early all-in marine+SCVs is not too good to watch paying $19.99 per season.
Nestea is a better player than TSL_Rain when he goes into mid-games. I, as a fan who thinks it's worth paying money for GSL, want to see more quality games than early all-ins that players use because they don't know how to beat other ways. Or it might be true that terran players do not know the other ways because they use early all-ins all the time.
Regardless, the quality of quarter final was not as satisfactory as GSL1 and 2 from fan's point of view.
Now, as for TSL_Rain as a pro-gamer, taking all the blames for advancing to semi final as a worse player than Nestea, I don't think he should be that targeted.
What people really want to talk to is the BLIZZARD balancing team. I don't want to talk about the balance here but people get mad when certain balance patches go wrong and mess up the whole game quality. Just think about why most terrans do all-ins at least one of their matches. Games are set so intense and motivating to win by cheesing.
TSL_Rain shouldn't be the one people target at and blame. Or other cheesy players just like bitbybit.prime shouldn't be blamed too. The target has to be why players go only all-ins and reduce the quality of games.
Once an opponent knows what the cheeser is going to do, the game should be favored to who knows what the cheeser is going to do. But now, it's certainly not. At least Terran players have very higher chances of winning by cheesing than going into mid-meta games. Who would work unnecessarily harder?
I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
I would blame Gom's prize distribution. For ever match you win, the next match you play for more than double the prize money of the previous match. Who wouldn't abuse cheesy allins for that kind of cash?
edit: I can see the frustration in the eyes of the people who paid to watch this tournament. All I can say is: it sucks to be you. At least you got clide vs leenock in the ro64 right?
Honestly, leave the guy alone. He said in his interview he hadn't had time to practice that much. He also knows NesTea is a better player then him.
If you had 85 grand on the line, and had a higher chance of getting it by cheesing your oppenent rather then playing straight up macro, you would cheese.
Sorry the GSL isn't what everyone always wants. I for one, (even though I am a zerg player) am glad we might have a TvP final. Although Im really sad about fruitdealer losing =(
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
sure, but nestea winning wouldn't have made the games any more exciting :D not to mention the fact that when playing against these things, you do a lot of things more or less in the dark and tehre are a lot of very blurry lines to be stepped over very easily which cost you the win.
As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
Didn't read the whole thread but if people are flaming Rain...they shouldn't. I do believe that Terran cannot compete against Zerg late game especially against a player like Nestea BUT that's not my argument for not flaming him.
I simply believe that what he did to beat Nestea was intuitively smart and similar to how Nazgul knocked out Idra in MLG. If a macro monster like Nestea is going to FE and outmacro you what you should do is try to all-in kill him early it's just the smartest strategic choice to make. I mean at least Rain gave macro games a shot and got completely stomped by Nestea so he changed his game up.
On December 07 2010 03:10 Nagano wrote: Might want to put this in a spoiler please.
Put what in a spoiler? If you're reading this thread you assume you're going to find out about Rain's GSL 3 experience...
It's not clear what round the spoilers are for. Also, reading "GSL" and "Rain" in a title, you can already figure out that he won. That's what happened to me - I'm in this thread and I haven't seen the games yet because of this.
The gamestrategies didnt settle down yet, so obviously a lot of rushes and that sort of stuff will work really well. That's how the game works. And really you cant blame both of them seeing this many rushes now wil lresult in the game changing towards another playstyle by the Zergs to counter it and so on. So really guys enjoy the show and dont hate on people that do what works.
The way the current meta-game is set, Top Zergs are rarely ever beaten if allowed to push and macro into late game. Their weakness is early game, everyone knows this general concept.
All the guy wanted to do was to capitalize on that weakness. Do I blame him? Nope! Like 50bani said above me, he's playing to win. IMNestea didn't have to 15 Hatch every game, greedy build, he gets punished!
The reason why terrans do semi allin or allin in plays isn't because they want to it's beacause late game terran sucks so hard. Trying to beat a zerg late game just isn't going to happen unless you did something big early game to get the advantage. Also it's not an impossible push to hold off so I don't know why blizzard would need to get involved to nerf something that doesn't even need to be touched.
Whenever a less known and liked player wins important series against fan favourite there is outcry in forums, that has benn so in BW that will be so in SC2. And that is natural, everyone wants their favourite to advance and yes it sucks there are no zerg left in GSL, but people have to get hold of themselves and not make every single live report thread into balance discussion (or call upset winner names), have faith in players to figure it out.
On December 07 2010 03:16 Lumin wrote: The way the current meta-game is set, Top Zergs are rarely ever beaten if allowed to push and macro into late game. Their weakness is early game, everyone knows this general concept.
All the guy wanted to do was to capitalize on that weakness. Do I blame him? Nope! Like 50bani said above me, he's playing to win. IMNestea didn't have to 15 Hatch every game, greedy build, he gets punished!
How is this meta-game at all? Using the word "game" makes 999999x more sense here, there's nothing meta about "this strategy is good at this point in this matchup". NOTHING.
Just cause people paid 19.99 to watch games, it shouldn't mean a player should be pressured to play a unfavorable game for themselves. If he feels like his best chances of winning are early game allins, why wouldn't he do it?
It would either mean
A) Nestea was ill prepared for the cheese or B) Balance is off and that Nestea despite being prepared and the "better" player could not stop it
If the case is B then that means we shouldn't blame the player but instead blizzard for bad balance.
Seriously, its insane that we're getting angry at players for trying to win; this is their job, unlike BW pros, they don't have steady salaries and their only form of income is winning tournaments.
everytime i get really upset about cheesy games (especially this deep into gsl), i remember that these are the "preliminary qualifiers" for the real league. I also try to step back, calm down, and remember that this game is less than 6 months into its lifespan as a game/sport.
As i am certainly disappointed with some of the games, i am also highly disappointed with other sporting events when they become melodramatic(e.g. world cup finals this year). I don't feel bad for TSL.Rain. He had to choose whether he wanted to go for the best probability of winning the games vs nestea or if he wanted to build fans by bringing exciting games. He isn't stupid and he knows fans want to see exciting games not early rax all ins.
Maybe I am mistaken but none of his wins today seemed as if he had any back up plan. He says he "want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that." I'm not a professional player but thats not what i saw out of his games.
Interestingly, TSL_Rain immediately posted "APOLOGY" on the biggest SC2 community in Korea. What he says was mainly about not showing as good games as the expectation for quarter final and matchups with Nestea. He certainly didn't want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that.
Now that's just off the charts ridiculous. As a player, he shouldn't have to concern himself with the spectacle. His craft is winning matches. Besides, even from a spectacle standpoint, these kinds of builds can in turn make for very exciting situations if they're defended. Case in point: Nestea defending MK's all-ins during the last GSL finals.
Rain's apology makes sense to me. He's sorry you're not getting your $20 worth. But he's not about to give up thousands of dollars to make you feel better about your $20.
id rather see a player winning with a cheap strategy than watch him not playin as effective as he could just because people dont like to see that. so yeah, its a balance issue, but until the balance team does something about it, games should be exactly as they are right now.
As I said, Rain shouldn't be the one who people targeted at and blame. But such early all-ins make games less attractive. There has to be some counter-strategies but at the moment certainly nothing seems to work, so all terrans go and die for all ins. Who would pay for and watch games if more than 70% TvZ go early all ins or lose when terrans decide to go for mid-games.
This is annoying. Those players are paid to win games. Thats it. If you want a show, visit some rock concert. Currently the game strongly favors Zergs in late game and Terrans in early game. So if you want to win, well, do the math..
As long as "Cheesy" strats consistently gives players wins, this will never change.
Its not the players that are the problem, its how the game is designed. Blizzard wants variety, they want rushes to be viable, they dont want to "force" a certain playstyle upon people. So with this mindset from the developer, it'll continue.
One topic that should be questioned though, is if the cheese is actually as easy or hard to do as it is to defend, this is where i'm hesitant for alot of terran strats, mainly beacause of the mule which allows terran to use their workers in attacks much more so than protoss and zergs.
Saying NesTea is ill-prepared for the marine/SCV all in is to say that every zerg that has fallen to it was also unprepared.
How many thousands of games do the zergs have to play to figure out how to consistently beat this one strategy that takes little mechanics to pull off?
All the blames for cheesy strategies in T vs Z are on fire at least in Korea
TSL_Rain, who knocked out Nestea in GSL3 quarter final, is taking all the blames and shames from Korean SC2 communities for not being as qualified as Nestea overall but advancing to semi final with only cheesy all-ins.
He has reached semi final beating all the opponents mostly by 2 rax or 4 rax with scv+bunker all ins since his first round (but not all games).
Interestingly, TSL_Rain immediately posted "APOLOGY" on the biggest SC2 community in Korea. What he says was mainly about not showing as good games as the expectation for quarter final and matchups with Nestea. He certainly didn't want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that.
His coach in team TSL responded to it right away. 'Don't blame but cheer him up for TSL_Rain's micro against the best defensive zerg 'Nestea' was his point.
Okay, The following is what I think about the issue.
In T v Z, early all-in marine+SCVs is not too good to watch paying $19.99 per season.
Nestea is a better player than TSL_Rain when he goes into mid-games. I, as a fan who thinks it's worth paying money for GSL, want to see more quality games than early all-ins that players use because they don't know how to beat other ways. Or it might be true that terran players do not know the other ways because they use early all-ins all the time.
Regardless, the quality of quarter final was not as satisfactory as GSL1 and 2 from fan's point of view.
Now, as for TSL_Rain as a pro-gamer, taking all the blames for advancing to semi final as a worse player than Nestea, I don't think he should be that targeted.
What people really want to talk to is the BLIZZARD balancing team. I don't want to talk about the balance here but people get mad when certain balance patches go wrong and mess up the whole game quality. Just think about why most terrans do all-ins at least one of their matches. Games are set so intense and motivating to win by cheesing.
TSL_Rain shouldn't be the one people target at and blame. Or other cheesy players just like bitbybit.prime shouldn't be blamed too. The target has to be why players go only all-ins and reduce the quality of games.
Once the opponent knows what the cheeser is going to do, the game should be favored to who knows what the opponent is going to do. But now, it's certainly not. At least Terran players have very higher chances of winning by cheesing than going into mid-meta games. Who would work unnecessarily harder?+ Show Spoiler +
thats exactly the problem. even if you see that coming you still have a lesser chance to stop it effectively unless the cheeser makes some blunder. is like terran player has this ultimate instant dead card for emergency.
about 4 months after release i think terran has fully found out all the design's flaws and utilise them for their wins.
Mass reaper------>Foxer-->BBBprime/Rain
Rain said sorry probably simply because deep down he knows that he didnt deserve the win (which is caused by blizzard's design ultimately).
Cheesing is contemptible but legit. The only thing that's sad here is that Rain apologized for trying to win. The fact that he felt obliged to apologize makes me suspicious that players might be playing in certain ways just for showmanship, if anything, which I guess might be alright given that if you play spectator worthy games, your fan base grows and you could potentially make more money.
On December 07 2010 03:20 JWD wrote: Renamed the thread, to avoid wasting characters on [GSL Spoilers]. If anyone has a better idea for a thread title that will also make obvious that there are GSL results in here, pipe up.
GSL Ro8 fan reaction?
The fact that there is a fan reaction at all makes it clear there was an upset, no need to say which game the upset was in the title.
On December 07 2010 03:20 JWD wrote: Renamed the thread, to avoid wasting characters on [GSL Spoilers]. If anyone has a better idea for a thread title that will also make obvious that there are GSL results in here, pipe up.
GSL Ro8 fan reaction?
The fact that there is a fan reaction at all makes it clear there was an upset, no need to say which game the upset was in the title.
Good idea. It's pretty presumptive to suppose that a fan reaction means an upset (could have been a special build, unlikely unit, disconnect, ceremony, or even just dominant 3-0 by winner) but better safe than sorry, in the thread title.
I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
Apology here for not putting a spoiler title. But somebody gotta help me out with how to edit the title. I've been spending more than 20 mins on how to edit the title!!!
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with what Rain did and he shouldn't have to apologize for anything.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Brewers wrote: Apology here for not putting a spoiler title. But somebody gotta help me out with how to edit the title. I've been spending more than 20 mins on how to edit the title!!!
haha don't sweat it man. You can't edit thread titles, only mods can. Not your fault.
On December 07 2010 03:20 JWD wrote: Renamed the thread, to avoid wasting characters on [GSL Spoilers]. If anyone has a better idea for a thread title that will also make obvious that there are GSL results in here, pipe up.
GSL Ro8 fan reaction?
The fact that there is a fan reaction at all makes it clear there was an upset, no need to say which game the upset was in the title.
Good idea. It's pretty presumptive to suppose that a fan reaction means an upset (could have been a special build, unlikely unit, disconnect, ceremony, or even just dominant 3-0 by winner) but better safe than sorry, in the thread title.
lol wtf you took my rename and moved GSL ro8 spoiler to the end... -_- It's actually the exact same title lol
Everytime I see a terran go for the SCV marine all-in I cringe - it's why I love Jinro's play so much. Having said that, you could be the best mid or late game player on the planet and you would get no where if you can't stop early game attacks. As of right now it is stoppable attack.
And really, hatch first on SoW against a Terran that has been known to all-in? very risky.
There's a reason why a ridiculous amount of TvZ in the GSL this season was early all-in... it's a fact that most Terrans (except hero Jinro and some others) don't want to macro against zerg.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
Because according to every pro zerg, 14 hatch is the COUNTER (as in, safest opening) to 2 barracks marine pressure -> all-ins.
Ret and IdrA both have given their opinion on this, and the simple fact that even fruit and Nes are doing it sees like they agree.
Rain shouldn't have to apologize. He understood his opponent strengths and weaknesses while at the same time knowing his own. He saw a way to beat Nestea and took it. He is here to win not tech ravens because its cool to watch.
Nestea lost those games his opponent did not do anything out of the ordinary, Nestea did not react properly. Throwing down spines instead of queens would have really helped him but he decided against it and it cost him.
On December 07 2010 03:24 Dayvan wrote: Cheesing is contemptible but legit. The only thing that's sad here is that Rain apologized for trying to win. The fact that he felt obliged to apologize makes me suspicious that players might be playing in certain ways just for showmanship, if anything, which I guess might be alright given that if you play spectator worthy games, your fan base grows and you could potentially make more money.
i really think this is the bigger issue. Rather than turning it into a balance poop throwing contest, i'd prefer to address the notion of "his job to win."
I'd argue that competitive sports would be non-existent without passionate spectators and just "doing anything to win" is a step backwards for e-sports. Winning of course is the ultimate goal, but i believe many are like me and would rather see our favorite go down in an epic blaze of glory than all in 3 times. I woke up this morning to see fruitdealer do something epic not to see him win in a boring crap match.
Rain shouldn't have to apologize to anyone. but at the same time he shouldn't expect to gain fans by executing a very boring strategy. Am i the only one who picks my favorites based on the excitement of there games rather than there W-L Ratio?
Wow, I can't believe people would blame the player and say they aren't getting their $20. And I can't believe Rain apologized, but I guess the culture is different.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Clearly the game is broken because zergs can't safely manage to go for their most economic opening every game. (sarcasm, just in case you didn't understand).
Also, like others have said, don't blame Rain for trying to win. One problem here is one which doesn't even need Blizzard intervention. It's called custom maps. Instead of using maps with short rush distances where early pressure/all-ins are easier due to short distances, or where there are choke 'issues' etc, make maps which don't necessarily have these features.
Some people seem to think that if you don't 14 hatch as a zerg, you've lost the game. Well, if you do 14 hatch, you've got (from these games) a 60% chance of losing, so maybe now that zergs mostly now how to 14 hatch, they should try and develop other possibilities which might be defensive without killing early econ too much. Or just whine about terran cheese.
(Also hopefully the reduced build time bunkers of the PTR won't go through to the final patch, because that would be even more difficult).
On December 07 2010 03:08 Brewers wrote: Once the opponent knows what the cheeser is going to do, the game should be favored to who knows what the opponent is going to do. But now, it's certainly not. At least Terran players have very higher chances of winning by cheesing than going into mid-meta games. Who would work unnecessarily harder?
Actualy my friend, that's exactly what happens in the most cases when Terrans beat the crap out of 14 Hatch. Many Terrans fail to do so, cause they dont know how to play correctly, how to presure, when to stop. But actualy building an expo before having the defence to do so, is in no regard better than attacking when you dont have an exit strategy if your attack fails. Zergs should stop acting like women, that ignore that passive aggression (yes, the opposite to passive is active, not aggressive) is still aggression. To me 14 hatch seems to be a non attacking cheese. So NesTea is the one who should apologize if anybody should...
P.S.: Exaggerating? You should get the point of view
P.P.S.: If the early Terran pressure is not defendable by any means, the balance team needs to do it's job
What? So you blame Blizzard instead? LOL To be honest, the only ones to really blame are the Zergs for not defending and/or scouting properly, in other words, you CAN defend all-ins. These words are from a Random player so I can be in both situations
All of the cheesy quick-game Terran play has given me little incentive to buy another GSL ticket. Its just not fun to watch. I doubt I will buy a GSL4 ticket for just this reason. Its interesting to see it a few games, but when pulling almost all your SCVs to attack with a bunch of marines becomes "standard", its complete shit. So little diversity, so little excitement. Its not exactly a thrilling unit composition.
On December 07 2010 03:32 cocosoft wrote: What? So you blame Blizzard instead? LOL To be honest, the only ones to really blame are the Zergs for not defending and/or scouting properly, in other words, you CAN defend all-ins. These words are from a Random player so I can be in both situations
The fact that you play random doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. It means you're probably not bias, but it has no implications that you are even knowledgeable enough to make that judgment.
Rain won, Nestea failed to defend. Hatch first every game. What do you expect? For your opponent to sit there and let your advantage flourish in the midgame? If anything Nestea should be blamed for not adjusting his strat knowing how powerfull such all-ins can be against hatch first.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Clearly the game is broken because zergs can't safely manage to go for their most economic opening every game.
Also, like others have said, don't blame Rain for trying to win. One problem here is one which doesn't even need Blizzard intervention. It's called custom maps. Instead of using maps with short rush distances where early pressure/all-ins are easier due to short distances, or where there are choke 'issues' etc, make maps which don't necessarily have these features.
dont be stupid, the 'best macro opening' is the only chance at beating the build because terran barely has to sacrifice anything to do it. means if you do anything but hatch expand it doesnt matter if you live, you'll never catch up in econ.
You guys need to respect Chill's opinion on this matter because he has more experience than anyone else posting here. You can't artificially remove cheese from the game because it will take away from the depth of the game. Even though there is a high amount of cheese in TvZ we know it can't last forever and we know that the macro style TvZs will be all the more exciting.
I'm a zerg player and I don't think Rain should have been forced to apologize. Imagine if boxer apologized for bunker rushing all games in the OSL finals...He wants to win and he'll use the most effective strategy. I don't think terrans are hopeless after midgame like so many terrans claim, but I do agree that an early pressure/all-in marine build has a better than fair chance of winning given the same mechanics level. The problem belongs to blizzard and not to rain.
On December 07 2010 03:32 Mohdoo wrote: All of the cheesy quick-game Terran play has given me little incentive to buy another GSL ticket. Its just not fun to watch. I doubt I will buy a GSL4 ticket for just this reason. Its interesting to see it a few games, but when pulling almost all your SCVs to attack with a bunch of marines becomes "standard", its complete shit. So little diversity, so little excitement. Its not exactly a thrilling unit composition.
When going 14 hatch becomes "standard" and can be often countered by SCV/Marine all-in it's complete shit. Why blame the counter and not the original build?
On December 07 2010 03:22 Fa1nT wrote: Saying NesTea is ill-prepared for the marine/SCV all in is to say that every zerg that has fallen to it was also unprepared.
How many thousands of games do the zergs have to play to figure out how to consistently beat this one strategy that takes little mechanics to pull off?
Stop 15 hatching every game. FEs are obviously very stoppable by one-base all ins. If you want to be a progamer and do so purely by playing a macro game, there's a very obvious window of opportunity for your opponent.
It's not like it's impossible to scout/react and one-base as a response.
Because according to every pro zerg, 14 hatch is the COUNTER (as in, safest opening) to 2 barracks marine pressure -> all-ins.
Ret and IdrA both have given their opinion on this, and the simple fact that even fruit and Nes are doing it sees like they agree.
And there are not any zergs left in the GSL. Thinking like that, if even a 14 hatch doesn't work, that just means the game is imbalanced greatly in favor of the Terran.
If it's really the best opening, of course ! Maybe they'll find out something better when everything's gonna cool down. (Fruit didn't even 14 hatch a lot, he prefered to one base cheese a lot more.)
People are mad at TSL_Rain's general attitude about the whole thing. In his interview, he basically said 'lol sorry for going all-in every game guys, i didn't have time to practice' So, not only are they mad that he knocked out the 'better' player, but because TSL_Rain was trying to acknowledge his fans when he really wasn't. Him lurking on playxp and posting all night long yesterday before his match didn't help either, now he can't even make the excuse that he didn't have time, cuz he clearly had time to go on playxp and post in every thread.
On December 07 2010 03:32 Mohdoo wrote: All of the cheesy quick-game Terran play has given me little incentive to buy another GSL ticket. Its just not fun to watch. I doubt I will buy a GSL4 ticket for just this reason. Its interesting to see it a few games, but when pulling almost all your SCVs to attack with a bunch of marines becomes "standard", its complete shit. So little diversity, so little excitement. Its not exactly a thrilling unit composition.
Terran players can't help it. It only makes the game challenging (unsafe) for them if they want to play straight up macro with a Zerg that knows what they are doing.
If you were in Rain's shoes, do you want to play only macro games against someone like Nestea or FruitDealer?
kinda sucks for this guy getting all the blame. plenty of terran's of lesser skill have done this strat created by marinkingprime. even in his post game interview he didn't seem too happy about it, not really the kind of happiness you would expect in a guy who is in the semi's of the gsl. I was pretty upset at first with the series but really he did what was best to ensure victory. He lost two macro games pretty horribly to nestea so rushing is the best option for him. He shouldn't have to apologize for anything.
This is a balanceflaw that wont stop untill Blizzard takes action. Many players can keep up with the very best if doing this so why shouldnt they? 0% winrate when trying macro, 100% winrate when scvmarinebunker cheese. There is no reason why Terrans should stop doing this, it is by far the best option a lot of them have.
All of the QQ over this bo5 really makes me lose confidence in this community. This is a tournament where the player who wins goes on to the next round, not the better player goes to the next round. In this bo5 series he won 3 games and that qualifies him for the next round, doesn't matter if you don't like his style of play or how he did it.
He even admitted himself that he had personal problems that got in the way of his preparation and as such had to resort to different strats and hoped they worked. Well guess what, they DID work and you can't judge him for that. It's not like this type of play is unstoppable, IMNestea made a few mistakes and rain was able to capitalize on them.
People should be mad at NesTea for not throwing down blind spine crawlers. If he dies to all-ins then that means that he's being greedy.
Look at BW. Zerg knew the timings at which Terran could threaten them so they would prepaer for an attack - it didn't matter if the Terran was to attack or not.
Zerg playing ín a way that kept them safe from all-ins would weaken their mid-game but it would probably lead to good games.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Clearly the game is broken because zergs can't safely manage to go for their most economic opening every game.
Also, like others have said, don't blame Rain for trying to win. One problem here is one which doesn't even need Blizzard intervention. It's called custom maps. Instead of using maps with short rush distances where early pressure/all-ins are easier due to short distances, or where there are choke 'issues' etc, make maps which don't necessarily have these features.
dont be stupid, the 'best macro opening' is the only chance at beating the build because terran barely has to sacrifice anything to do it. means if you do anything but hatch expand it doesnt matter if you live, you'll never catch up in econ.
Well doesnt this sound like you are playing a pretty badly designed game. Where one build is the only chance you have to beat another build.
I respect you as a player man, but there is never only 1 way to handle something. Why we gotta be so negative.
Eh who cares if he cheesed? He entered the tournament because he wants to win it. Not because he wants to be known for some super uber play. It's like 90K dollars or something? Everyone and their mother would do anything to win.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Are you kidding me? Someone should be able to go nearly 4 minutes without a single attacking unit and expect to able to hold early aggression?
I'm sorry but no. What happens if Protoss wants to go for 'their best macro game' and goes Nexus first vs Speedling opening? Or early pool in general?
You can't just whip your balls out in public and expect everybody to enjoy it. It's a calculated risk going hatch first and you reap what you sow.
I don't like watching cheese games, but Zergs themselves have done enough of them. None other than FruitDealer cheesed oGsInca twice in the round of 8 in GSL1 shamelessly, frustrating Inca so much that he left without GGing.
So yeah, that's a very important thing to remember.
Another fact is, you cannot let Zerg expand all over the place. After that, it is too difficult to contain and win against them. So cheese is OK against Zerg right now. Otherwise, even average Zerg players roflstomp good P or T.
On December 07 2010 03:39 slimshady wrote: When BoxeR was doing all-in in StarCraft 1, it was ok... Now it isn't? Wtf?
Truth to be said, when BoxeR did his legendary "sam yeon bung" or "3x bunkering" vs. Yellow, he did get a ton of insults and negative comments -- some netizens even calling on him to go die.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Are you kidding me? Someone should be able to go nearly 4 minutes without a single attacking unit and expect to able to hold early aggression?
I'm sorry but no. What happens if Protoss wants to go for 'their best macro game' and goes Nexus first vs Speedling opening? Or early pool in general?
You can't just whip your balls out in public and expect everybody to enjoy it. It's a calculated risk going hatch first and you reap what you sow.
The difference is that even if you don't go nexus first, and zerg makes speedlings, you lose anyway because you can only make units out of 1 gateway for the rest of the game. Analogy doesn't work very well
BTW, this is what ret posted afew hours ago in the LR
On December 06 2010 19:36 Liquid`Ret wrote: people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked
not to mention you have to blindly make ~20 lings in that case so if terran just stops after 5 mariens and puts down a CC you are economically fucked
nestea fucked up his drone/ling control pretty bad there but hatch first is the only choice really...hency why steppes is auto loss vs terran, im sure nestea expected to lose set 2
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
QFT. I want people to do anything legal to win. If you outlaw certain strategies due to an abstract sense of honour or skill, then you're not playing to win anymore.
If you can win every game by 6 pooling, do it. Yeah, it's annoying as an opponent, but if you're going to complain about it, l2p first.
I've had these discussions in the UFC threads and Starcraft threads many times before. There's a guy in mma named Jon Fitch who is constantly getting questioned for his style. He is considered one dimensional and using the rule system to maximum advantage by making sure he takes points and don't really risk very much while getting them.
To me it's just about his opponents not being good enough. They simply cannot avoid having him on top punching them until the fight ends. I admit I have been quite bored in a few of his fights but that's because his opponent were to outclassed. (One could argue if take downs should score as much etc but that's not the case now)
Now he's going to fight a legend in the sport who is well known for having VERY good defenses against take downs in Bj Penn. This is so exciting to me because finally there's probably going to be a fight and not Fitch sleeping on top of a helpless dude.
Now to wrap this up my point is that in sports the rules must remain flexible because the competitors should always use every element of strategy and tactics to get the win. If Fitch goes out and tries to have a boxing match with Bj Penn then he's going to be stupid, look stupid and I will be disappointed.
I want to see zerg players not go hatch first on scrap station as much as I want to see terrans not make 2 rax aggression.
You can't blame the competitor, blame the rules in the game.
Edit: And if you blame the game, do so in a proper way. For example I think this might come down to maps. Imo a spine crawler should defend the expand and blistering sands/ xelnaga were spines are pretty bad is not good map design)
I would never apologize for beating someone with cheese if they cannot defend it then its their own loss. It isn't Rain's job to entertain the fans. That is secondary to winning.
Give me a freaking break, you don't have to appease to the fans ever. Did Boxer ever apologize to Yellow for bunker rushing him three times in a row and winning? No.
This doesn't make Rain any less of a player, sorry.
Interestingly, TSL_Rain immediately posted "APOLOGY" on the biggest SC2 community in Korea. What he says was mainly about not showing as good games as the expectation for quarter final and matchups with Nestea. He certainly didn't want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that.
On December 07 2010 03:32 Mohdoo wrote: All of the cheesy quick-game Terran play has given me little incentive to buy another GSL ticket. Its just not fun to watch. I doubt I will buy a GSL4 ticket for just this reason. Its interesting to see it a few games, but when pulling almost all your SCVs to attack with a bunch of marines becomes "standard", its complete shit. So little diversity, so little excitement. Its not exactly a thrilling unit composition.
Terran players can't help it. It only makes the game challenging (unsafe) for them if they want to play straight up macro with a Zerg that knows what they are doing.
If you were in Rain's shoes, do you want to play only macro games against someone like Nestea or FruitDealer?
You're right, but I feel like you misunderstood what I am saying. I am not blaming any specific person, whether the player or Blizzard or whatever. I am simply stating that as a viewer with a long history of competitive RTS, who has since stopped being competitive for the sake of school, I enjoy the depth of the game. There is no depth to 5 minute marine+scv pushes. 5 minute marine+scv pushes have become common in TvZ. TvZ is a common match up. Therefore, it is common for a common match up to be boring and uninteresting to me. Therefore, regardless of who is to "blame", I have less incentive to buy another ticket.
And yet, being someone with a long history with competitive RTS, I realize that these sorts of things have happened in the past in both WC3 and BW. Sometimes super cheesy boring shit surfaces. And it is used A LOT because of how effective it is. But sometimes, after about a month, it is "figured out" and no longer works. But sometimes, it plain and simply needs patching. Since it hasn't been very long, I will withhold judgment. But if it is not patched or figured out within the next month, it is the obligation of the player to try to diversify matches. I do not think it will come to that, though.
Wow I'm stunned at the amount of people blaming the game and defending TSL_Rain here. Rain himself knows damn well he robbed spectators and nestea of a good game and a fair game right there and it's absolutely ridiculous for so many people to state terran can't win a macro war against zerg because this is simply not true.
Nestea definately could have done a better job defending these all ins but we all know this wasn't a fair game and that has nothing to do with race balance in the lategame, not wanting to play a full on macro game is not the only alternative, you can have timing pushes and slow push towards the zerg base. It's not one or the other.
Legit macro games >>> legit cheese games >>>>>>>>>>>>>> macro games just for show.
Rain should have absolutely cheesed. I would want nothing less than someone doing whatever is possible to win. It's unfortunate that the game is like this right now as a viewer, all I can do is sit here and hope it improves with time.
I think he was apologizing to the people who were watching, which is fine. I mean i think he should do whatever it takes to win, just dont expect me to watch 5 6min games, or be a fan of you
really though, appreciate the game for what it is. hopefully blizz will make cheese a little less strong. but better maps would help.
i feel like part of what makes early game rushing so much stronger in sc2 is that u start with 6 workers instead of 4. that means u can get production buildings quicker while having a larger base of workers. so when u do something like rush with marines + scvs, ur gonna have more scvs to send with them.
Apologizing for winning in a cheesy way is stupid. Apologizing for cheesy play means that you think that Boxer some how cheated us with his famous 3x bunker rush series.
obvious fact: nestea knows his opponent is most likely going to all-ins because terran trend/rain has been all-ining game a lot in previous round => trains most likely vs all-ins => decides to go hatch i mean srsly it likely both players know exactly what bo their opponent are throwing at them TvZ need to be reworked
so called cheesy play can be exciting for a game in a series. Kind of like when Leenock 6 pools (has happened twice) but yeah it might be stupid game design to have scvs attacking a standard response to a drone or two to much
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Clearly the game is broken because zergs can't safely manage to go for their most economic opening every game.
Also, like others have said, don't blame Rain for trying to win. One problem here is one which doesn't even need Blizzard intervention. It's called custom maps. Instead of using maps with short rush distances where early pressure/all-ins are easier due to short distances, or where there are choke 'issues' etc, make maps which don't necessarily have these features.
dont be stupid, the 'best macro opening' is the only chance at beating the build because terran barely has to sacrifice anything to do it. means if you do anything but hatch expand it doesnt matter if you live, you'll never catch up in econ.
Well doesnt this sound like you are playing a pretty badly designed game. Where one build is the only chance you have to beat another build.
I respect you as a player man, but there is never only 1 way to handle something. Why we gotta be so negative.
... the whole point is that it is badly designed, in this regard at least. really in general, warpin and mules make allins too strong. just about every single zerg has opened hatch first. me and ret who spent a week exclusively preparing for zvt's came to the conclusion that you have to open hatch first. it makes sense logically. what more do you want?
On December 07 2010 03:40 Xxavi wrote: I don't like watching cheese games, but Zergs themselves have done enough of them. None other than FruitDealer cheesed oGsInca twice in the round of 8 in GSL1 shamelessly, frustrating Inca so much that he left without GGing.
So yeah, that's a very important thing to remember.
Another fact is, you cannot let Zerg expand all over the place. After that, it is too difficult to contain and win against them. So cheese is OK against Zerg right now. Otherwise, even average Zerg players roflstomp good P or T.
FD 6pooled first game, second game Inca failed a 2gate attack so FD countered and killed him.
6pooling aint cool as well but like 2rax all-in it would have a place in the game if it punished greedy builds only - not as the best way to kill your opponent no matter their build. If 2rax all-in would destroy a 15 hatch no spinecrawler build but would be stopped by 14 hatch with spinecrawler then cheesy all-ins would make sence. Then we would have a counter to greedy play only, something you cant 100% rely on but if your guts tells you your opponent is greedy and seeks an eco advantage you can kill your opponent with it. When it wrecks standard openings with a succesrate of 80% against the best players in the world ..... then something is totally off, right?
If in chess, there was a way to win in 15 moves, white would do it every time, don't blame someone for trying to win.
Basically 14 hatch is like a gambit, and right now that gambit is not working against an aggressive style. If this was chess, the player would simply try a different opener. If you haven't practiced other openers, then it makes sense to do the same thing every time, but realize that you basically are gimping yourself.
He did what he needed to win, is that not the goal of a tournament?
People are paying 20 dollars to watch the tournament. It is rather silly to expect players to go for a long match if they are certain they will lose it, and in my mind, pretty close to expecting players to throw matches for your entertainment
edit: With that much money on the line, wouldn't you do everything possible to win? Ro8 is 3.4kUSD whereas ro4 is 8.6k USD
On December 07 2010 03:32 Mohdoo wrote: All of the cheesy quick-game Terran play has given me little incentive to buy another GSL ticket. Its just not fun to watch. I doubt I will buy a GSL4 ticket for just this reason. Its interesting to see it a few games, but when pulling almost all your SCVs to attack with a bunch of marines becomes "standard", its complete shit. So little diversity, so little excitement. Its not exactly a thrilling unit composition.
Terran players can't help it. It only makes the game challenging (unsafe) for them if they want to play straight up macro with a Zerg that knows what they are doing.
If you were in Rain's shoes, do you want to play only macro games against someone like Nestea or FruitDealer?
You're right, but I feel like you misunderstood what I am saying. I am not blaming any specific person, whether the player or Blizzard or whatever. I am simply stating that as a viewer with a long history of competitive RTS, who has since stopped being competitive for the sake of school, I enjoy the depth of the game. There is no depth to 5 minute marine+scv pushes. 5 minute marine+scv pushes have become common in TvZ. TvZ is a common match up. Therefore, it is common for a common match up to be boring and uninteresting to me. Therefore, regardless of who is to "blame", I have less incentive to buy another ticket.
And yet, being someone with a long history with competitive RTS, I realize that these sorts of things have happened in the past in both WC3 and BW. Sometimes super cheesy boring shit surfaces. And it is used A LOT because of how effective it is. But sometimes, after about a month, it is "figured out" and no longer works. But sometimes, it plain and simply needs patching. Since it hasn't been very long, I will withhold judgment. But if it is not patched or figured out within the next month, it is the obligation of the player to try to diversify matches. I do not think it will come to that, though.
I understand that you enjoy the game for entertainment purposes, but going further in-depth to the games and seeing why a player won or why a player lost also has it's place when watching a game such as Starcraft 2. Why complain about the $15 it takes to watch the games? Are you truly saying that none of the games were appealing to you? You didn't enjoy watching Sen's Ro64 Match or Nestea's? I feel this season's play, minus a few players (Who, yes, have advanced with the Marine/SCV All-In), is phenomenal, and you can't blame the game for something that a played didn't do.
The job of the player is to try to win using whatever strategies they think make that most likely. A game where 75% of games have fast, boring all-ins needs to be rebalanced, but blaming the players for that is stupid. In fact, I'd go a bit farther and say that it would be wrong of them not to do that stronger strategy. Blizzard is only going to be convinced and fix it if it really does seem to be where the game is going. It's not exactly a balance issue, since the win percentage is still ok - it's just an issue for what sort of game starcraft will be. There's not a very good chance they'll figure out they need to stop that from just their ladder stats. The pros need to prove that a build really is that strong.
yesterday i 14 hatched in a random vs random ladder game and the kid 6 pooled. i really couldnt scout it in time and the kid goes just practice more and you will get better. games like that really dont improve my playing skill and dont really bother me when i lose to lame bullshit like that.
but the most important thing is to win, especially when playing for money.
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
ya obviously theyre doing a build this build solely because macro tvzs impossible. or maybe its because the build is ridiculously strong?
wait.. Rain gets stick for fighting 2 fair games and winning while he can, but Marine King gets nothing but praise for his (admitedly skillful) use of only tier one units, ever.?
I don't know what kind of dream world people are living in but in the real world when money is involved it is cutthroat. You do everything legally possible to win. I know it sucks as a fan but you have to come to terms with it. That is how the real world works. I would bitch at blizzard to fix this stupid stuff than blame a player for taking advantage of what is given to him.
How could you blame a player for playing the way that he believes maximises his chance of winning? Isn't that the whole point of competition? Don't you think it would be sad if e.g. fruitdealer won the GSL because terrans were too polite to do a particular strategy?
As a spectator, I want strategies like this to become rare. But I think that will only happen if players learn to play well enough against them that they're not worth doing, or Blizzard manages to patch the game so it's not worth doing.
Nestea's defense is what lost him those games, it's nothing Rain should be apologizing for. Marine + scv rushing isn't unstoppable, even if it can be tremendously difficult. On steppes he had time to make a spine cralwer but didn't, and then when he engaged he wasn't attacking the marines. On xel'naga he misplaced his spine crawler and didn't attack the bunker when it was at like 40 health and let his spine fall. On blistering he could have got a baneling nest(a blind response but it could have prevented the loss).
Yea it feels unsatisfying to watch these cheesy 6 min games sometimes, but Nestea could have won those games if he played better. Rain doesn't need to be saying sorry because Nestea didn't have a good enough response to them.
To people who are saying zergs should stop going FE every game, look at BW. 12 Hatch is the standard opening and has always been the go to opening for almost every situation. Any opening that's not a 12 hatch puts enormous pressure on the zerg to do damage with initial zerglings, and almost relies on the terran either not walling or walling improperly to have a significant effect. At least 80%, if not more of the games played in ZvT are 12 hatch openings.
That being said that was of course a fair amount of bunker rushing in BW, but a good zerg always had a very good chance of defending against it with a 12 hatch and still coming out even handed. Especially when the zerg player is better overall, the terran rarely could straight up win or gain an advantage by bunker rushing against a 12 hatch.
The biggest contributor to this is probably the fact that marines are much better against zerglings now. Not only do the 5 extra hp is a matter of life and death at times, kiting with marines is infinitely easier to execute, while zergling AI in small numbers is hardly better. I played a game yesterday against my friend who bunker rushed me. I destroyed the bunker with drones and lings no problem because I saw it super early, but then he sent 4 marines. I had 6-7 slow zerglings at the time. In BW, 4 marines against 6 slow zerglings would be an easy victory unless the terran had amazing micro, and even then it will probably turn out even. Here I engaged his marines on open ground, and he just took them all and shot, moved back, shot, moved back repeatedly until he killed all 6 lings without losing a single marine. Imagine 4 marines killing 6 lings on open ground with zero casualties in BW.
Zergs have blings, roaches, infestors, blords to beat marines later on, but early game when there's nothing but drones and zerglings, marines reign supreme and IMO that's a big reason why bunker rush against hatch first is so much more powerful against zergs in SC2 than in BW.
I can understand the frustration of viewers, especially foreign ones who tune in during odd hours to watch the games for entertainment. It's obnoxious to see an "unskilled" player beating a "better" player, especially when you were hoping for awesome matches.
However, I agree with Chill's take on the issue, the desire to win at any cost should be the primary reason for playing games. Playing for showmanship isn't what we should be encouraging in a fledgling scene. The drive to win, and the results it produces should be the focus. If NesTea had acknowledged TSL_Rain's constant early aggressive play/all'ins and adapted his play style to them, the games would have been very different.
For American's I'll liken the results to Football (not soccer, America football). In the old days, teams lined up with perception of "we'll go head to head, and may the best man win." As the sport naturally developed, teams began to scheme against specific players and try to shut them down. Quarterbacks need pressure applied to them to reduce their throwing potential, Defenses choke up to prevent runs, etc. While it limited the potential of certain favorite players of the time, it pushed the overall sport further along, evolving it into something greater.
Now bring this back to Broodwar/gaming. Most teams have players who are MU specific "snipers." It's the job of the "more skilled" player to demonstrate the gap in their abilities and overcome whatever the threat is. Cheezing also isn't entirely indicative of a player's potential or skill set, and I would be careful about drawing preemptive conclusions.
Remember when Flash cheezed our favorite players out of MSL/OSL? God what a scrub, kid had no skill and wasn't going anywhere. Go back and read the LR threads of those games, and compare them to this GSL match.
Remember when a legendary rivalry series(BoxeR vs YellOw) was decided with Bunker rushes? What kind of scrub would do that? No respect for the game.
Cheezing is a valid part of the game that adds an early dynamic, and shouldn't be restricted but embraced. If anything, the blame should be shifted to NesTea for failing to react to the obvious.
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
I think that's bull. terrans are trying their best to end the games that early because that's easiest. everything i've seen shows that terran is capable of having an awesome late game. they have units to deal with anything, and planetary fortress/sensor towers are the ultimate in map control.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Clearly the game is broken because zergs can't safely manage to go for their most economic opening every game.
Also, like others have said, don't blame Rain for trying to win. One problem here is one which doesn't even need Blizzard intervention. It's called custom maps. Instead of using maps with short rush distances where early pressure/all-ins are easier due to short distances, or where there are choke 'issues' etc, make maps which don't necessarily have these features.
dont be stupid, the 'best macro opening' is the only chance at beating the build because terran barely has to sacrifice anything to do it. means if you do anything but hatch expand it doesnt matter if you live, you'll never catch up in econ.
Well doesnt this sound like you are playing a pretty badly designed game. Where one build is the only chance you have to beat another build.
I respect you as a player man, but there is never only 1 way to handle something. Why we gotta be so negative.
... the whole point is that it is badly designed, in this regard at least. really in general, warpin and mules make allins too strong. just about every single zerg has opened hatch first. me and ret who spent a week exclusively preparing for zvt's came to the conclusion that you have to open hatch first. it makes sense logically. what more do you want?
I want to see you 6 pool. Do it for the fans.
But in all seriousness, You have more insight than me.
After thinking about it more, if you don't go hatch first, Terran has already accomplished what he wanted to do with the all-in anyway. He prevents that crucial early expo and setting up your econ for midgame, doesn't even have to all-in when he sees no hatch, as he knows he can just sit there and go into econ and be ahead.
On December 07 2010 03:53 Inkcrow wrote: wait.. Rain gets stick for fighting 2 fair games and winning while he can, but Marine King gets nothing but praise for his (admitedly skillful) use of only tier one units, ever.?
He doesn't always go Marines though, nor does he go early cheese every game. He just likes to mass Marines.
most comments are not negative at all on playxp...where is this "reaction" coming from.
most comments are: "unfortunate but shows a good game on ro4!" "its ok, ro4 fighting!" "it happens, its the way of pro-gaming" "why apologize? not ur fault that terran's late game sucks"
and i agree, this is nothing to be upset about. hatch first is a risk and rain took advantage of that regardless of if he planned the cheese for hatch first or not.
There's nothing you like more then to scout zerg and see that there's no hatch... 1. You block the expand 2. Scan main gives all the intel you require if you can't scv scout because you know theres no creep in other locations (unless he does a hatchery trick but that's not even worth to mention)
Long story short, everything a zerg does out of one base is easy to scout and react well to. I mean you still have those two barracks making marines so he's still making lings, cant use spines for defense while the hatch is morphing(more lings).
So would advice against pool first in most cases ;o (even Artosis stopped being critical about it) This will lead to more scv rushes on these maps. I do it and I love to macro in rts games
regarding hatch first, i think it's totally understandable build from zerg
however on ladder i often see these zergs who hatch first and build their pool like 10 million years later while they drone up, and then complain when u punish them for it
(im playing shitty players though. but i think this has some insight into the mindset of a lot of complainers)
i really think hatch first can handle pretty much anything if ur build is good/fast and u have really awesome control
On December 07 2010 03:29 DoubleReed wrote: I'm not familiar with the BW scene. Are cheesey upsets really that uncommon?
I thought people were used to this sort of thing.
OSL 2010 S2 Final between Jaedong & Flash, iirc: normal game 4pool. proxy rax vs 4pool. 5rax.
-> Jaedong & Flash are obviously bad players who can only do cheese/allins!
GSL1: Fruitdealer won against Inca with a 6pool - OMG the heresy. He doesnt deserve his GSL1 champion title!
Look at GSL2 - a lot of games of Foxer who just used early Marine agression to beat good (better?) Zergs (Fruitdealer). Those actions & his micro (not his strategy / gameplan) made him popular. Look at DaviT. Look at Actionjesus. Those players showed that when the better players dont pay attention they will lose. And I think that's good. Because if not - we could just skip all matches between "normal" player and "good" player:
Foxer vs Fruitdealer ? Sry, Fruitdealer is the better player. Nestea in GSL S2 RO64/32? Oh Nestea that player who sucked in GSL1. Let his opponent advance. Oops - both GSL2 finalists out early.
Cheese & AllIns are part of the game. They are defendable. Maybe Nestea is old so he cannot micro at the same level as his opponent (Rain). He was attributed with great game sense - well that doesnt help him in a high micro / low econ situation.
On December 07 2010 03:46 Scar wrote: Wow I'm stunned at the amount of people blaming the game and defending TSL_Rain here. Rain himself knows damn well he robbed spectators and nestea of a good game and a fair game right there and it's absolutely ridiculous for so many people to state terran can't win a macro war against zerg because this is simply not true.
Nestea definately could have done a better job defending these all ins but we all know this wasn't a fair game and that has nothing to do with race balance in the lategame, not wanting to play a full on macro game is not the only alternative, you can have timing pushes and slow push towards the zerg base. It's not one or the other.
1) When GSL started, did the sign-up require you to sign something saying "I promise to give spectators and my opponent a good game"? No? Is there a rule in the tournament that requires you to play macro games? No? Well, then, Rain did not rob anyone. He played by the rules, and it's ridiculous for you to suggest he robbed anyone. Terran can win macro war against zerg, and zerg can win against all-in. See how that works?
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
I think everyone forgot what 3-4 base terran mech looked like in the last few months! ^^
(even though Jinro is still pulling it off! see vs Moon)
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
ya obviously theyre doing a build this build solely because macro tvzs impossible. or maybe its because the build is ridiculously strong?
I dont like, how strong this build is and honestly I find it retarded. But why on Earth it is all-in after all-in? Like - you had this pathetic 5rax Reaper build. So they nerfed it to death. And now we got what - another all-in/cheese? So whats the next build after they let this early rax pressure die?
The implementation, not so easy. They need to come from blizzard since GOM has stated it won't disadvantage players who mostly practice on the ladder by adding their own custim maps.
Also I see Chill is still raging over the miss-usage of meta-game :D
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
ya obviously theyre doing a build this build solely because macro tvzs impossible. or maybe its because the build is ridiculously strong?
I dont like, how strong this build is and honestly I find it retarded. But why on Earth it is all-in after all-in? Like - you had this pathetic 5rax Reaper build. So they nerfed it to death. And now we got what - another all-in/cheese? So whats the next build after they let this early rax pressure die?
Not to argue semantics but...
Most versions of the reaper build used vs zerg weren't anywhere near all in, they actually set up a strong economy, with a slight tech disadvantage.
I massivly prefered the reaper play over the current 2 rax play. Which is so strong it makes zergs prepare for that even before the game starts, somewhat form their build around it, hence dominating the META-GAME (I did it!)
Blaming someone for doing whatever's in his power to win is absolutely ridiculous.
As far as balancing goes, I don't see any need for immediate action from Blizzard's side either. 8 rax bunker rushes were thought to be impossible to hold for a 12 hatching Zerg for a while when BW strategy was already much more involved than SC2 strategy is now. We even had Yellow complaining about it on forums, much like Idra is now.
If it turns out that 2 rax play is still as ridiculous as it is now in a few months, when we'll know more about the game and (hopefully) have better maps, then of course Blizzard should do something about it, but patching the game every time a race has a problem with a strategy isn't helping the game evolve.
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
ya obviously theyre doing a build this build solely because macro tvzs impossible. or maybe its because the build is ridiculously strong?
I dont like, how strong this build is and honestly I find it retarded. But why on Earth it is all-in after all-in? Like - you had this pathetic 5rax Reaper build. So they nerfed it to death. And now we got what - another all-in/cheese? So whats the next build after they let this early rax pressure die?
On December 07 2010 03:55 travis wrote: planetary fortress/sensor towers are the ultimate in map control.
Even just reading this sends chills down my zerg spine. 100% agree that terran mid-late game is not hopeless against zerg. Pro terrans are rushing because rushing is so powerful and costs relatively little, not because they can't play a macro game.
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
I think that's bull. terrans are trying their best to end the games that early because that's easiest. everything i've seen shows that terran is capable of having an awesome late game. they have units to deal with anything, and planetary fortress/sensor towers are the ultimate in map control.
there is a reason maps weren't tiny in sc1
MAPS MAPS MAPS
People underestimate the power of maps to balance the game. BW balance came from maps. These games aren't balanced given an open plain. Maps aren't for flavor. Maps are for balance. Maps need to be designed to make it easier for zergs to defend an early hatchery via rush distance, and maps need to be designed with late-game push routes for terran that will allow them to maintain a positional advantage if their control is good enough. Similarly maps should allow protoss to FE. The only map in the current pool worth anything is Shakuras, really. The rest are garbage.
Rain's got nothing to apologize for. He was playing to win, and even though it pisses people off that he did something people frown upon, he did win with it. If I tried to 2-rax rush ZergBong I would get the shit kicked out of me.
hm my opinion on that being good in mid and late game is important, but you have to survive the early game nevertheless, and if you aren't that good against rushes you must play more defensiv than you would like to. Imo the zerg just took the terran to lightly and underestimated him, best way to win a game is to make your opponent think you are weaker then him and then exploit his weakpoint. (which for zerg is i want to macro hard and don't care for defense)
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
ya obviously theyre doing a build this build solely because macro tvzs impossible. or maybe its because the build is ridiculously strong?
I dont like, how strong this build is and honestly I find it retarded. But why on Earth it is all-in after all-in? Like - you had this pathetic 5rax Reaper build. So they nerfed it to death. And now we got what - another all-in/cheese? So whats the next build after they let this early rax pressure die?
5rax reaper wasn't really allin was it?
I put it into the same group of retarded builds that wont last any longer than month or two. Than it gets patched or people will adapt and it dies..
1) Rain should never apologize. 86k on the line - you play to win. I don't care how exploitive or imba the builds, you do it.
2) The problem isn't cheese.
3) The problem isn't cheese.
4) The problem isn't cheese.
ok.
every race has its cheese potential, proxy rax/gate, cannon rush, 6 pool etc. This is fine, this is healthy for the game, it adds variety and excitement at times. The problem with this 2 rax shit is that as IdrA says the T can get away with it for little economic impact, where as the zerg HAS to fast expand to have any chance whatsoever to win/get ahead in mid game. If you don't hatch first, or at minimum hatch very fast you're going to lose to a 1/2 base timing push. So zerg is forced to do these expand builds that are punished extremely hard by a relatively easy to pull off exploitive marine/scv push. This cycle will never end in the current state of the game. Hatch first = chance to win midgame/lategame = will likely lose to great micro from scv/marine push. Don't hatch = defend early pressure (T likely won't if he scouts) = lose to huge bio push. Many TvZ will be won or lost in the first 5 minutes until something is figured out or there is a patch.
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
I think that's bull. terrans are trying their best to end the games that early because that's easiest. everything i've seen shows that terran is capable of having an awesome late game. they have units to deal with anything, and planetary fortress/sensor towers are the ultimate in map control.
there is a reason maps weren't tiny in sc1
I totally agree. Just watch some of Jinro's games and you'll see how amazing terrans can be in the late game. You just have to continue expanding while pressuring the zerg. You can't sit back while waiting for a 200/200 army and expect to roll over the zerg.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
I agree with you. All - in or cheese, they are strategies.. Flash was also accused of a cheeser at the start of his career.. Now look at him...
On December 07 2010 03:49 darmousseh wrote: If in chess, there was a way to win in 15 moves, white would do it every time, don't blame someone for trying to win.
Basically 14 hatch is like a gambit, and right now that gambit is not working against an aggressive style. If this was chess, the player would simply try a different opener. If you haven't practiced other openers, then it makes sense to do the same thing every time, but realize that you basically are gimping yourself.
No you're wrong, 14 hatch is the best way to counter 2x rax. But since 2x rax is broken it's beating its own counter way too easily. The reason is because 14 hatch = more larva, larva that you need to beat that mean marines that early. Pool first losses due to lack of larva. 14hatch is best way to open but the game is broken and blizzard needs to fix it and anyone who does this broken strat should appologize.
If I would blame one thing about this TvZ series, it's the map pool, not the players. I'am not qualified to speak about balance but this show earlier today was boring as a spectator. But some series were also boring during the so called bw-era (Boxer vs Yellow 3 bunker rush anyone? and it was a final... iirc).
Anyway, I'm still waiting for the game to evolve and I see some good potential in this show to step on a new level.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
right now carriers motherships and battlecruisers are what i want to look forward to in those "amazing drawn-out" rare games, not a macro game that frankly should be the norm.
what you say about the WWE system is silly. it's simply a matter of fixing some mechanics of the game so that the "dirtiest games" are a little less banal than marines and scvs dancing around bunkers. we're not asking pro gamers to perform a play for us here. we're asking for some rules to change.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
I agree with you. All - in or cheese, they are strategies.. Flash was also accused of a cheeser at the start of his career.. Now look at him...
I think what many people are trying to say, but cannot (because of board rules), is that there might not be a counter to this specific strategy if the terran does it well. That is related to a balance QQing though... but there is no room in a strategy game for a simple to execute strategy with no real counter other than the other player doing it badly..
Only time will tell if this is true, but if GSL4 still has 50% of terrans doing this, they are doing to get a lot less ticket sales.
On December 07 2010 03:49 darmousseh wrote: If in chess, there was a way to win in 15 moves, white would do it every time, don't blame someone for trying to win.
Basically 14 hatch is like a gambit, and right now that gambit is not working against an aggressive style. If this was chess, the player would simply try a different opener. If you haven't practiced other openers, then it makes sense to do the same thing every time, but realize that you basically are gimping yourself.
No you're wrong, 14 hatch is the best way to counter 2x rax. But since 2x rax is broken it's beating its own counter way too easily. The reason is because 14 hatch = more larva, larva that you need to beat that mean marines that early. Pool first losses due to lack of larva. 14hatch is best way to open but the game is broken and blizzard needs to fix it and anyone who does this broken strat should appologize.
Who says the hatch needs to be at your expo if larvae are the issue?
So what.. Remove Steppes of War and make Metalopolis cross spawn? There is a reason why all Terrans are trying their best patch after patch to end games that early.. If you make bigger maps, you will see Zergs dominating absolutely everything as Terran just cant keep up with Zerg macro.
I think that's bull. terrans are trying their best to end the games that early because that's easiest. everything i've seen shows that terran is capable of having an awesome late game. they have units to deal with anything, and planetary fortress/sensor towers are the ultimate in map control.
there is a reason maps weren't tiny in sc1
I totally agree. Just watch some of Jinro's games and you'll see how amazing terrans can be in the late game. You just have to continue expanding while pressuring the zerg. You can't sit back while waiting for a 200/200 army and expect to roll over the zerg.
Well, Moon was at Lair tech and he had like 3 bases at max whole game.. I dont really think Jinro would've done that good against NesTea or Fruitdealer. We didnt see those deadly tech switchs, which Zerg is capable of and this is what kills Terran in late game.. This is my point of view.
On December 07 2010 03:49 darmousseh wrote: If in chess, there was a way to win in 15 moves, white would do it every time, don't blame someone for trying to win.
Basically 14 hatch is like a gambit, and right now that gambit is not working against an aggressive style. If this was chess, the player would simply try a different opener. If you haven't practiced other openers, then it makes sense to do the same thing every time, but realize that you basically are gimping yourself.
No you're wrong, 14 hatch is the best way to counter 2x rax. But since 2x rax is broken it's beating its own counter way too easily. The reason is because 14 hatch = more larva, larva that you need to beat that mean marines that early. Pool first losses due to lack of larva. 14hatch is best way to open but the game is broken and blizzard needs to fix it and anyone who does this broken strat should appologize.
Who says the hatch needs to be at your expo if larvae are the issue?
If they're all in your base that's just going to leave you wide open to a bunker contain at your ramp.
On December 07 2010 03:49 darmousseh wrote: If in chess, there was a way to win in 15 moves, white would do it every time, don't blame someone for trying to win.
Basically 14 hatch is like a gambit, and right now that gambit is not working against an aggressive style. If this was chess, the player would simply try a different opener. If you haven't practiced other openers, then it makes sense to do the same thing every time, but realize that you basically are gimping yourself.
No you're wrong, 14 hatch is the best way to counter 2x rax. But since 2x rax is broken it's beating its own counter way too easily. The reason is because 14 hatch = more larva, larva that you need to beat that mean marines that early. Pool first losses due to lack of larva. 14hatch is best way to open but the game is broken and blizzard needs to fix it and anyone who does this broken strat should appologize.
Who says the hatch needs to be at your expo if larvae are the issue?
Because then you'll end up with marines at your ramp, in a choke point, with bunkers building at the bottom of the ramp, while Terran's income is higher than yours due to mules, and his probably taking his expo.
was anyone else dissapointed in the defence from nestea? i mean we've sene these rushes been held off but i dont think the rushes were actually handled very well.
On December 07 2010 03:32 cocosoft wrote: What? So you blame Blizzard instead? LOL To be honest, the only ones to really blame are the Zergs for not defending and/or scouting properly, in other words, you CAN defend all-ins. These words are from a Random player so I can be in both situations
The fact that you play random doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. It means you're probably not bias, but it has no implications that you are even knowledgeable enough to make that judgment.
I'm just taking the problem in another perspective. People seem to blame the easier entity in the problem and not realizing that the only thing that can solve the problem is to make zerg learn how to play, instead of blaming blizzard and requesting another nerf to terran that will nerf them to the ground. And yes, I hate the fungal growth nerf.
On December 07 2010 03:54 Volshok wrote: I can understand the frustration of viewers, especially foreign ones who tune in during odd hours to watch the games for entertainment. It's obnoxious to see an "unskilled" player beating a "better" player, especially when you were hoping for awesome matches.
However, I agree with Chill's take on the issue, the desire to win at any cost should be the primary reason for playing games. Playing for showmanship isn't what we should be encouraging in a fledgling scene. The drive to win, and the results it produces should be the focus. If NesTea had acknowledged TSL_Rain's constant early aggressive play/all'ins and adapted his play style to them, the games would have been very different.
For American's I'll liken the results to Football (not soccer, America football). In the old days, teams lined up with perception of "we'll go head to head, and may the best man win." As the sport naturally developed, teams began to scheme against specific players and try to shut them down. Quarterbacks need pressure applied to them to reduce their throwing potential, Defenses choke up to prevent runs, etc. While it limited the potential of certain favorite players of the time, it pushed the overall sport further along, evolving it into something greater.
Now bring this back to Broodwar/gaming. Most teams have players who are MU specific "snipers." It's the job of the "more skilled" player to demonstrate the gap in their abilities and overcome whatever the threat is. Cheezing also isn't entirely indicative of a player's potential or skill set, and I would be careful about drawing preemptive conclusions.
Remember when Flash cheezed our favorite players out of MSL/OSL? God what a scrub, kid had no skill and wasn't going anywhere. Go back and read the LR threads of those games, and compare them to this GSL match.
Remember when a legendary rivalry series(BoxeR vs YellOw) was decided with Bunker rushes? What kind of scrub would do that? No respect for the game.
Cheezing is a valid part of the game that adds an early dynamic, and shouldn't be restricted but embraced. If anything, the blame should be shifted to NesTea for failing to react to the obvious.
The differance is that BW T could equally fight an end game Z. In fact late game TvZ BW was insanely entertaining as it was such a blood bath style MU with battles occuring all over the map. Imagine you have your football team, but theres a problem. your guys are all the best players but they have no stamina and theres just a slight chance of you winning in the end game what are you going to do?
For people who are suggesting bigger maps.. cmon really? Lets let Z get end game every time that will fix the problem just about as much as blizzard releasing 10 second away distanced maps( I wonder who would benefit there)
The issue is balance, give T back their late game and nerf their early game. Once you fix that then apply bigger maps and we will see some epic TvZ.
On December 07 2010 04:19 Jantix wrote: I can't believe this is even a conversation.
Its a big money paying tournament and people are complaining because players are trying to win instead of entertain?
WTF?????
As you noticed maybe - this thread immidiately switched to Zerg vs Terran balance issue. So, no big deal.. Of course, this is no brainer.. Rain shouldnt apologize for winning games, there is something wrong.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
right now carriers motherships and battlecruisers are what i want to look forward to in those "amazing drawn-out" rare games, not a macro game that frankly should be the norm.
what you say about the WWE system is silly. it's simply a matter of fixing some mechanics of the game so that the "dirtiest games" are a little less banal than marines and scvs dancing around bunkers. we're not asking pro gamers to perform a play for us here. we're asking for some rules to change.
Some people are actually suggesting Rain shouldn't have done the all-ins even though that was his best chance to win. Asking for changes from Blizzard isn't unreasonable (even though I think it's too soon), but suggesting a player shouldn't use a certain strategy because they're considered 'lame' is laughable in any serious competition.
On December 07 2010 03:17 wassbix wrote: Just cause people paid 19.99 to watch games, it shouldn't mean a player should be pressured to play a unfavorable game for themselves. If he feels like his best chances of winning are early game allins, why wouldn't he do it?
It would either mean
A) Nestea was ill prepared for the cheese or B) Balance is off and that Nestea despite being prepared and the "better" player could not stop it
If the case is B then that means we shouldn't blame the player but instead blizzard for bad balance.
Seriously, its insane that we're getting angry at players for trying to win; this is their job, unlike BW pros, they don't have steady salaries and their only form of income is winning tournaments.
On December 07 2010 04:19 Jantix wrote: I can't believe this is even a conversation.
Its a big money paying tournament and people are complaining because players are trying to win instead of entertain?
WTF?????
what people are complaining about is that it turns out that you don't need to use 90% of the units in SC2 in order to win most games. props to players playing to win.
i'm kind of worried that people who are angry at Rain and people who are angry at people who are angry at Rain are missing the big picture here.
if kicking balls in boxing were legal people would do it. thank heavens it's not legal.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
This... In American Football and other sports all teams in the league are professionally coached and have some of the best players available... Are you going to see blowouts? Yes! Are you going to see lopsided games? Yes! Does that mean we should change the balance of the game to make the danger of all-ins and the adjustments that have to be made because of that disappear? I don't think so. Anything that restricts the number of options each player has in an RTS is bad for business.
I agree.. bigger maps + nerf terran early and buff late. I think that would fix all match ups..
Anyway.. that was a dumb series lol.. but I dont blame rain. I hate cheese junk but even I wouldve done that 3 times in a row if I knew I had like 75%+ chance of winning with it. Even if that game was like a best of 11 and he did the same thing 6 times in a row I dont think nestea wouldve ever stopped it because he cant micro.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Thats actually a bullshit. Marine/SCV all in isn`t stoppable by 14 hatch and u have to go 14 hatch because pool first is even worse.
Rain shouldn't have to apologise, but I really hope that zergs can find an answer to 2-rax play. It doesn't make for entertaining matches, and TvZ is becoming a frighteningly shallow matchup.
I know that if I was looking to win a TvZ, I'd be going 2-rax early pressure simply because it's potentially a huge payoff (instant win or serious damage) with very little risk and hardly any economic damage.
As much as it pains me that players who are good at rallying marines and workers into a base and being able to kite win over people who are better at the rest of the freaking game, Rain did right. He found a weakness and exploited the hell out of it.
People should be blaming NesTea for not being able to counter cliche ladder cheese.
On December 07 2010 04:24 strength wrote: Why should they complain about cheesy builds? sc1 had bunker rushs that yellow hated hehe. Zergs will learn how to adapt, no worries.
imagine a game where a set of strategies were so strong that nobody could learn to play against it. everyone would be using that strategy, right?
zerg really is biggest QQ race in this game, wish they realized how big advantage gives them larva inject and larva stacking that nobody actually wants to go to midgame on their tearms.
This build is very strong against 14 hatch specifically. Zerg has no good way of dealing with early marine pressure until they get speed, banelings, roaches, spinecrawlers or some combination. 14 hatch essentially says "I want an economic lead right now" and it is a gamble. If zerg can hold off the initial pressure, then they take a huge lead right away economically. For zerg it's about balancing economics against pressure and riding the line. Right now, 14 hatch is riding the thinnest line possible. I really liked fruitdealers build better getting the early gas and pool. The only difference is that I would expand at 24 food instead of 1 base all-ining.
With the addition of spawn larvae and the faster economy of sc2, expanding is important, but possibly not as important as sc1 and in fact is riskier because of how quickly someone can create an army. I'm not saying that 14 hatch is wrong, but that sc2 is a different game and rushing for an early economic boom might just be too risky for all 3 races.
In scbw, you needed more hatcheries to make units (kinda like protoss and terran need production buildings), so the idea was, just make it at your expansion, however, with the addition of the queen to provide more production, it might be possible to delay getting that expansion up until you are in a more comfortable position. A queen is essentially half a hatchery by itself. Now of course chrono boost and mules didn't exist, but regardless zerg can still saturate faster than the other two races.
I really like the idea of 11 pool/18 hatch. 11 pool gets the queen out quickly to help with defense, helps with creep spread, provides extra production, and provides significant flexibility early without sacrificing any economy. If you are forced to pull drones off of minerals while defending you are essentially losing minerals. 12 drones off of minerals averages to 8 minerals per second. If you are pulled off for 15 in game seconds, then you lose 120 minerals + 50 minerals for each drone lost. The goal of defending should always be to defend with as little as possible while still maintaining a decent income. The other idea behind the late hatch is that if they do all in with marines and scvs, it takes longer to reach the base even if it is only 5-10 seconds longer, 5-10 seconds makes a huge difference. I think another important thing is the position of the scouting overlord. Ideally it should be in a spot to spot for an all in. Positioning near the workers is one possible location, or positioning right outside the ramp is another. It's not doable on all maps, but it should be considered.
And don't take anything i take too seriously please, i'm not a pro zerg player. These are just things I think about.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
right now carriers motherships and battlecruisers are what i want to look forward to in those "amazing drawn-out" rare games, not a macro game that frankly should be the norm.
what you say about the WWE system is silly. it's simply a matter of fixing some mechanics of the game so that the "dirtiest games" are a little less banal than marines and scvs dancing around bunkers. we're not asking pro gamers to perform a play for us here. we're asking for some rules to change.
How is that silly? You brought up a point not even touched on by my comment and then called me silly for not saying it. I don't get it.
Also, I'd like the posters here to consider that the rules are fine and just need time to develop more. A lot of people are talking as if T early game is a freewin. It may be, but I'd like to have a little more time before I could say that definitively. People want the rules changed too easily...
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
^ /agree
It's not a balance issue.. it's simple reaction. If your opponent expands you attack or copy. i think Nestea has more skill but he failed to react to his opponent.
Further, I don't think this cheapens the show/event. As a big sports fan, I know that I'm not always going to get nail-biting edge-of-the-seat action. I love it when I do, but as long as there's a clear cut winner (even if it's not the better competitor) I'm satisfied.
1. Terran have easy access to abusive all in strats that we have seen showcased this whole season. They are very hard to stop and do not make for fun games to watch. Both protoss and zerg have no equilivant.
2. You cannot blame Rain for doing what is needed to win the games. The point of this tourney is to win. He did what he needed to to win and I do not blame him for it. (Just like I dont blame the All-ins against ret). He would be selling himself short if he didnt do everything in his power to win.
TLDR: The point of GSL is to win - doesn't matter how.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Actually it is quite impossible to beat since u have to go 14 hatch and 14 hatch is an auto-lose vs scv/marine all in as we saw on steppes of war.
In T v Z, early all-in marine+SCVs is not too good to watch paying $19.99 per season.
"if you can watch the finals between slayers_boxer(T) and [nc]yellow(Z)" Nestea is a better player than TSL_Rain when he goes into mid-games. I, as a fan who thinks it's worth paying money for GSL, want to see more quality games than early all-ins that players use because they don't know how to beat other ways.
"i dont pay for gsl (shame on me) i stay up and watch like a true fan (when i am lucky/like last night <3 to supporters who pay and dont QQ" final notes, i love being rushed like this, its fun to stop, i rarely do, and i will win vs it 100% eventually with more effort, and i will release replays if successful in a new thread one day, until then. "RUSH ME" i love your attempts.
edit: @Liquid`Jinro, find the zone, stay in the zone, get that adrenaline pumping, make sure you keep steady, and you will win. GL in matches. (stay in the zone when you get there, its like cheating)
On December 07 2010 04:28 lolipopz wrote: zerg really is biggest QQ race in this game, wish they realized how big advantage gives them larva inject and larva stacking that nobody actually wants to go to midgame on their tearms.
nobody wants to go midgame/lategame because the game allows you to win in the early game. there is no incentive to practice midgame/lategame, no matter how balanced it is up there.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Thats actually a bullshit. Marine/SCV all in isn`t stoppable by 14 hatch and u have to go 14 hatch because pool first is even worse.
On December 07 2010 04:30 wishbones wrote: In T v Z, early all-in marine+SCVs is not too good to watch paying $19.99 per season.
"if you can watch the finals between slayers_boxer(T) and [nc]yellow(Z)" Nestea is a better player than TSL_Rain when he goes into mid-games. I, as a fan who thinks it's worth paying money for GSL, want to see more quality games than early all-ins that players use because they don't know how to beat other ways.
"i dont pay for gsl (shame on me) i stay up and watch like a true fan (when i am lucky/like last night <3 to supporters who pay and dont QQ" final notes, i love being rushed like this, its fun to stop, i rarely do, and i will win vs it 100% eventually with more effort, and i will release replays if successful in a new thread one day, until then. "RUSH ME" i love your attempts.
You play to fucking win and u use the strategy that has the biggest chance of winning so why the fuck would u want to use other ways to win ? Such a flawed logic it makes my brain bleed.
On December 07 2010 04:30 dolpiff wrote: could the solution be as simple as -1 range on marines?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but kiting with marines wasn't nearly effective in scbw. Maybe make the attack animation like a fraction of a second longer. Idk, it would break the game. All I can say is why do stalkers shoot soooo freaking slow. Kiting with stalkers is a lot harder than with stimmed marines.
I've never felt that cheesey rushes in any way lowered the quality of a game. the meta game will always evolve in a way that makes cheesey rushes less successfulness from players having to constantly defend against them. Instead of feeling dissapointed from seeing an all in, you should be screaming and cheering because its crunch time. Thats when you see the players at their form.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Thats actually a bullshit. Marine/SCV all in isn`t stoppable by 14 hatch and u have to go 14 hatch because pool first is even worse.
On December 07 2010 04:24 strength wrote: Why should they complain about cheesy builds? sc1 had bunker rushs that yellow hated hehe. Zergs will learn how to adapt, no worries.
imagine a game where a set of strategies were so strong that nobody could learn to play against it. everyone would be using that strategy, right?
SC2 is kind of like that game.
But can we really say this is impossible to learn how to play against? I mean, this "style" is relatively new, some Zergs have defended it. I'd say waiting for a while is the best solution, lets see how this evolves.
I do think this strat is retarded, but I am upset in how quickly people scream for a patch. Really, lets remember that while BW did get its fair share of Balance patches it was the community who balanced the games,through new strategies and new maps.
I don't know, its just how people quickly say the game is broken the moment something does not go their way upsets me. Its just so frustrating to me.
I don't get why people only talk about Rain vs Nestea.
He pulled the same shit versus Genius and Squirtle as well. I don't know who he played in Ro64, perhaps some scrub. But this has nothing to do with TvZ.
This has everything to do with the fact that terrans who feel they can't compete know that they can compete in the early game even if they are not as good as their opponent. Naturally, because it's a money tournament, most people will throw away whatever sense of pride they may have and abuse that.
If he really did post an apology then I applaud him for that. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the kind of quarter final he would have want to win. If the same thing happens versus HongUn I'll be pretty pissed. But HongUn has a really strong early game so perhaps the semi-finals will be better.
It's still a huge problem that there's a really unproven terran in the semifinals of the best sc2 tournament however.
First, I would like to say that I'm sorry. I can imagine that you were very disappointed with today's series against Nestea. I really didn't have enough time to practice, and I got to practice for only about 2 days due to personal circumstances.
Out of the 5 maps played today, I was actually prepared to do an all-in only on Blistering Sands, but I didn't think things would turn out like this.
For Steppes of War, I initially planned to go 2rax early expansion, then slow push, but he went Hatch first, and it's nearly impossible to deal with cheese if you go 15hatch on this map, so I decided to cheese rush.
I prepared a similar strategy for Xel'naga Caverns, but I regret that I was not able to show it.
I apologize for the fans of Nestea and this game. I will prepare more for the semifinal and I will show you more exciting games then."
I honestly don't blame the guy. There is nearly 100K on the line, and you want to be using whatever strategies that will maximize your chance of winning against an opponent who is overall a better player than you are. As a pro, you need to do whatever it takes to win as long as you don't break the rule. It's Blizzard's responsibility to address this issue.
On December 07 2010 04:30 dolpiff wrote: could the solution be as simple as -1 range on marines?
Marines would be stalker bait o.o
A better solution is to add a fireing delay or cooldown. The problem currently is they attack instantly and then can be micro moved away. Prevent movement for 1/4-1/2 of their firing time (like give them an actual animation you cant stop). This will prevent abusive marine micro (which is the early game problem) but not effect the ball of units late game.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Thats actually a bullshit. Marine/SCV all in isn`t stoppable by 14 hatch and u have to go 14 hatch because pool first is even worse.
This is laughable...
What is laughable about that
The idea that you "have" to go 14 hatch is what is laughable. You don't.
With the 1.2 patch decreasing the time to create bunkers (granted, temporarily), it seems Blizzard doesn't really have a problem with this strategy. I don't blame them.
I don't see why this is a problem at all, Rain won fair and square. Yes Rain won in a cheesy manner, but he still won. This wouldn't have been an issue had NesTea won because apparently he's a player known for his impressive late game play. If this marine+scv all in vs Z early game is really such an issue to the point where balance is concerned, then that's a balance issue. Rain is in this to win and so is NesTea, whatever they do to win is up to them, also it's stupid to argue that Rain isn't on the level of people like NesTea, if NesTea is so high and mighty, how can he lose to this? Everyone has to account for all aspects of their game, be it early/mid/late, Rain exposed a vital weakness in NesTea's game and executed something that works. Why would he give this up for the viewing pleasure of an audience who isn't gaining or losing anything but entertainment value. This is Rain's life, he's dedicated a lot of time to playing SC2 presumably and he needs to get paid in the end.
Chill pretty much nailed it on the head with his post on first page..
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Thats actually a bullshit. Marine/SCV all in isn`t stoppable by 14 hatch and u have to go 14 hatch because pool first is even worse.
This is laughable...
What is laughable about that
The idea that you "have" to go 14 hatch is what is laughable. You don't.
And how exactly does making combat units instead of workers and buildings make your situation against a small early army worse?
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
right now carriers motherships and battlecruisers are what i want to look forward to in those "amazing drawn-out" rare games, not a macro game that frankly should be the norm.
what you say about the WWE system is silly. it's simply a matter of fixing some mechanics of the game so that the "dirtiest games" are a little less banal than marines and scvs dancing around bunkers. we're not asking pro gamers to perform a play for us here. we're asking for some rules to change.
How is that silly? You brought up a point not even touched on by my comment and then called me silly for not saying it. I don't get it.
Also, I'd like the posters here to consider that the rules are fine and just need time to develop more. A lot of people are talking as if T early game is a freewin. It may be, but I'd like to have a little more time before I could say that definitively. People want the rules changed too easily...
i dont know, going straight to WWE from "want to see amazing games" just seemed kind of silly to me. maybe cause the WWE seems like such a strong comparison.
he goes hatch first every game thats why he loses to that you'd think that maybe opening something safer might be better considering how much money is on the line.....
Edit: Hatch first is apparently supposed to be better against 2hatch >.<
They are playing to win $$$, we pay to watch. If you don't want to watch all-ins, by all means don't buy the premium. If Rain can win matches using all-ins, and win $87,500 USD, why do we as the spectators have the right to blame him for not 'putting on a good show'? He is simply winning games.
On December 07 2010 04:46 SubtleSense wrote: he goes hatch first every game thats why he loses to that you'd think that maybe opening somthing safer might be better considering how much money is on the line.....
i dont think people give korean pro gamers enough credit for the amount of testing and thought they put into their builds and openings
they do this for the extra larva as opposed to 4 larva 40 seconds too late
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Thats actually a bullshit. Marine/SCV all in isn`t stoppable by 14 hatch and u have to go 14 hatch because pool first is even worse.
This is laughable...
What is laughable about that
The idea that you "have" to go 14 hatch is what is laughable. You don't.
I dont think any players are to blame in this situation, they play professionaly, they both need the results. I think blizzard have to look at their game, or look at the maps.
I think there is a huge parallel to be drawn here with MorroW vs. Idra's Bo5 in the tournament I cant put the name on. When 5 rax reaper were hardly stoppable. (remember, MorroW apologied as well after he won)
It basicly involves T putting huge amount of pressure off one base right before Zerg expo kicks in.
Both strategies revolve on zerg inability to produce drones and combat units at the same time while T suffers very slight economics losses.
I believe we have to look at the mule, I have no idea how to replace it, but I think there're two points at the game were they are way to potent which are :
1) when they first kicks in. -> nearly the mineral income of two bases on one,
2) when T claims a gold expo (but that's a different story).
While the mechanic is inferior to the other two in the rest of the game.
As for the maps, well it prety obvious some rush distances are a bit too short.
id rather see the top players have varied openers and better mind games in these BO-X series. i can watch 14 hatch and terran all-in from just about every streamer. tournament play should about playing your opponent, not playing your race.
i feel like TSL_Rain did that by knowing NesTea always opens with 14 hatch. i'm glad he was able to punish him for it.
On December 07 2010 04:30 dolpiff wrote: could the solution be as simple as -1 range on marines?
Marines would be stalker bait o.o
A better solution is to add a fireing delay or cooldown. The problem currently is they attack instantly and then can be micro moved away. Prevent movement for 1/4-1/2 of their firing time (like give them an actual animation you cant stop). This will prevent abusive marine micro (which is the early game problem) but not effect the ball of units late game.
I think a 0.05 - 0.10 second animation delay before firing would fix the infinite kiting problem, but might bring up some other problems like being unable to kite banelings, but could be fixed by simply spreading the marines. Marines are such a vital part of the core balance of the game though.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Thats actually a bullshit. Marine/SCV all in isn`t stoppable by 14 hatch and u have to go 14 hatch because pool first is even worse.
This is laughable...
What is laughable about that
The idea that you "have" to go 14 hatch is what is laughable. You don't.
And how exactly does making combat units instead of workers and buildings make your situation against a small early army worse?
I don't get it, if you make combat units instead of workers, you'd be able to fend off any early pressure? (ie, Get Roaches off 1base then expand)
What i fail to understand is why zerg consistently fail to prepare for all-ins like this when they KNOW it's coming. They go 14 hatch and........start droning up preparing for the late game half the time? Seriously? I see this in streams and replays ALL the time. 14 hatch against T should go like this. Drone up, get hatch. Have second queen for second hatch ready to go. Spam your produce zergling key for every single larvae you have for the next minute. You know its farking coming, so act like you have map hacks. Its not like Ts can see exactly what you are doing. Now obviously I'm not top diamond, so I can't say I know the exact timings on all this, but it can't be that off. I see streams ALL the time of people losing to this crap with their nat almost saturated, they have gas almost up and everything. Not a spine crawler or mass zergling group in sight. QUIT DRONING UP YOU FARKING IDIOTS. If he marines scv all-ins you, and you have 20 zerglings, 2 queens, a spine, and 15 drones, you win. If he doesn't, you're still up a base, just drone up from there, your zerglings don't evaporate if the push doesn't come. And I may be off as to the timing of the builds going on in GSL, but i know for a fact random diamond nubs do this crap all the time.
Guys, I'm pretty sure these builds aren't anti hatch first, they CAN be if he bunkers early, but if you don't he can just hit the timing of pool first when your hatch just finished and its impossible to have a spine up in time.
I still say its a map problem though, I feel like maps are being used to counteract zerg's general macro advantage instead of trying to ensure zerg can be dealt with reasonably in high econ late game situations and having maps where terran/protoss all-in's can be dealt with by zerg.
Buying account to watch GSL games is not like buying product, where there is written that it will do this and that. For your 19.99$ you buy opportunity to watch something and you are not guaranteed to see long macro oriented lata game action. If you dont like it, dont buy it. Problem solved.. No need to discuss this here or make thread for this.
On December 07 2010 04:50 Sm3agol wrote: What i fail to understand is why zerg consistently fail to prepare for all-ins like this when they KNOW it's coming. They go 14 hatch and........start droning up preparing for the late game half the time? Seriously? I see this in streams and replays ALL the time. 14 hatch against T should go like this. Drone up, get hatch. Have second queen for second hatch ready to go. Spam your produce zergling key for every single larvae you have for the next minute. You know its farking coming, so act like you have map hacks. Its not like Ts can see exactly what you are doing. Now obviously I'm not top diamond, so I can't say I know the exact timings on all this, but it can't be that off. I see streams ALL the time of people losing to this crap with their nat almost saturated, they have gas almost up and everything. Not a spine crawler or mass zergling group in sight. QUIT DRONING UP YOU FARKING IDIOTS. If he marines scv all-ins you, and you have 25 zerglings, you win. If he doesn't, you're still up a base, just drone up from there, your zerglings don't evaporate if the push doesn't come.
cut at 15 drones build 24 zerglings fail vs 2rax into cc
GG rain. Did what he had to do to win, but his apology shows that he still has a sense of perspective on the e-sports scene. I hope he doesn't feel to bad about today. Sorry for Nestea too, he's gotta struggle with a loss like that
I hope this strat continues to be exploited to its fullest until either zergs/protoss adapt, or it is determined that they can't (and I don't care what you say, that is not yet the case), and Blizz step in.
I honestly don't think marine nerf is the way though. As they are they're possibly the most `awesome' (in the literal sense) and skillful unit in the game when used properly, and that to me is a pretty glaring tell on the state of the game.
Don't neuter the game any more yo, fix it. All that said I still enjoy 90% of games in the GSL.
On December 07 2010 03:12 50bani wrote: I stand by my opinion: TSLrain played it correctly if he was playing to win. You have to play tvz like that, macro games get you nowhere as Terran
This is the problem. Every race should feel like they stand an equal chance against other races in a heavy macro game. Whether or not this is the case, I don't know as I only play Zerg.
It would appear though that Terrans feel like they can't win in a late game macro battle against Zerg. If terrans really are unable to compete with Zergs in a macro game I think Blizzard should adjust some things to fix this.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Actually it is quite impossible to beat since u have to go 14 hatch and 14 hatch is an auto-lose vs scv/marine all in as we saw on steppes of war.
well see here's the thing.
You don't HAVE to go hatch first. I repeat, you do not HAVE to hatch first. Hatch first is a build designed to give an edge over the opponent right away. If he leaves you alone he is behind, period. Pool first into Hatchery is a lot safer but doesn't give you that edge straight away.
I would also like to state the record that most zergs nowadays don't scout with a drone if they go hatch first or plan to. If you send in an overlord in one direction and a drone at 9 in the other, you will scout both the bases in roughly the same time, leaving only the far away cross-position base unscouted. This gives you a 66% chance of scouting what he is doing for only a couple of minerals lost.
I am absolutely baffled when I watch progamers not scouting with a drone when they go hatchery first. Its like the riskiest opening you can open up with but they still believe that the 100 mineral over 2 minutes gained by keeping the drone mining is better than scouting that proxy barracks/forge first sooner which will completely destroy hatch first builds.
I can't fanthom why zergs nowadays think you have to hatch first. Infact, since most of the terrans go for aggressive economy punishing builds, its an advantage if you go pool first since you can hold off the aggression more easily.
For the record, I'm around 1800 diamond zerg ( not like it matters ) who goes pool first vs terran and dronescout on 9, and I still win a lot of my games.
On December 07 2010 03:12 50bani wrote: I stand by my opinion: TSLrain played it correctly if he was playing to win. You have to play tvz like that, macro games get you nowhere as Terran
Yeah well that was the OP's point though I assume. I think that the game is in a bit of unfortunate state at the moment in TvZ. But just because it seems this way now doesn't mean it will continue to be even without balance changes. But changes in the patch on the test realm may help improve terran mid-late game without the ability to fungal dropships and especially vikings.
for people complaining about the "value" received... I've received much better entertainment from this GSL than I've received from some $45 UFC fights. There's no guarantee of what you'll get each round.
On December 07 2010 03:12 50bani wrote: I stand by my opinion: TSLrain played it correctly if he was playing to win. You have to play tvz like that, macro games get you nowhere as Terran
This is the problem. Every race should feel like they stand an equal chance against other races in a heavy macro game. Whether or not this is the case, I don't know as I only play Zerg.
It would appear though that Terrans feel like they can't win in a late game macro battle against Zerg. If terrans really are unable to compete with Zergs in a macro game I think Blizzard should adjust some things to fix this.
i'm actually beginning to think that terran macro isn't the problem so much as the fact that there's no incentive to practice it. even if terran macro were strong enough so that the chance of winning in lategame was always 60%, players would practice early game strategies that would increase the chance of winning to 61%.
On December 07 2010 04:54 Rekrul wrote: hate the game not the playa
and LOL at posting a public apology about that. what a bitch.
Yeah I think the apology is a pretty big mistake. Much better to just remain silent about it. He even started to apologize in his interview post game, saying that he wanted to play macro games but due to a reason he couldn't disclose he couldn't practice much.
IdrA said something very correct about this, when talking about Huk's mothership strategy being utterly stupid and unprofessional.
A progamer's main duty is to win. Period. This means: Whatever means necessary - putting on a show is only a secondary point, if at ALL.
Also, if NesTea lost to all those, it's absolutely his fault. They can't change the GAME/BALANCE halfway through the GSL, and the players have to use what they have. And plus, it's not saying that 2rax/4rax is invincible; there are counters, and NesTea FAILED to counter. He's not some GOD of progaming, he's freaking ZergBong, this guy was mediocre (at best) at BW but good at SC2, but he's not PERFECT. He made mistakes falling to simple strategies like that.
For those still angry at Rain, BW can give you some help: This is just like Shine beating Bisu (repeatedly through "cheesy all-ins") and thus everyone MASSACRING Shine on the forums (TL as well). Fact is, though, BW is possibly the most balanced game we have, and Bisu lost fair and square all those times through his own mistakes of not being able to respond to those cheesy moves. If those strategies were invincible, every single player in the world would do ONLY those moves and constantly win.
Point is!!! Don't hate the player or the game (lol). The game is what it is now, it's up to Blizzard to patch it before GSL4. The players made the best of what they had, and their goal is to WIN. No one is paid to lose spectacularly, and if they were, that would be match fixing. Give Rain a break, there is NO FAULT in his actions. He won without cheatcodes, he won with what was given to him. Him apologizing is ridiculous and unfair. He should literally TAKE BACK that APOLOGY; this sets a bad precedent for everyone in progaming.
If he plays standard he has like 1% chance of beating nestea, I knew he would cheese and nestea should have known too and hence should be more than prepared, especially since he kicked out genius by cheesing. (still want to beat his brains out for that)
On December 07 2010 04:30 dolpiff wrote: could the solution be as simple as -1 range on marines?
Marines would be stalker bait o.o
A better solution is to add a fireing delay or cooldown. The problem currently is they attack instantly and then can be micro moved away. Prevent movement for 1/4-1/2 of their firing time (like give them an actual animation you cant stop). This will prevent abusive marine micro (which is the early game problem) but not effect the ball of units late game.
I think a 0.05 - 0.10 second animation delay before firing would fix the infinite kiting problem, but might bring up some other problems like being unable to kite banelings, but could be fixed by simply spreading the marines. Marines are such a vital part of the core balance of the game though.
I know, marines are so core that you have to be really careful with anything you change. But I think that short anamation will go along way in helping early game where there are just a few marines around.
Its kind of like the exact opposite of what they did in D3 - they showed a video about how changing just 1 variable (the time between the mob stopping and the attack connecting) made it alot more viable.
I think with tinkering, something similar can be done with the marine.
The number of people who keep thinking zergs going 14-hatch are being "greedy" is fucking absurd. They are not opening 3 hatch before pool, they're opening hatch first because if they don't it leads to one of the following:
A: Zerg 1 base play is scouted by 1 scv or 1 scan and easily countered. B: A slightly delayed push with more marines/scvs. B: Terran contain at the ramp. C: Terran Expansion that gives him a huge econ advantage.
The only way opening a slower hatch is effective is if your opponent is an idiot and pushes too soon, despite it being obvious you're on one base.
I don't know why people feel all-ins are boring to watch. Gets my adrenaline going like nothing else. Congrats to Rain for exploiting Nestea's weakness early early game which we have already seen before in his series' vs. Foxer and Maka, etc.
I don't think its Rain's fault at all. Koreans just have to stop hatching first all the time. It's even proven that you don't really get much of an econ advantage as long as you get your 2nd hatch up before your minerals saturated and queens with inject larva gives you way more than enough larva before the 2nd hatch is up.
I mean, what's "cheesier", an all-in or a build that isn't even safe?
On December 07 2010 04:59 Wings wrote: Also, if NesTea lost to all those, it's absolutely his fault. They can't change the GAME/BALANCE halfway through the GSL, and the players have to use what they have.
Not saying I disagree with your point, but they've done it before. They introduced a path mid-late into GSL1.
On December 07 2010 03:12 50bani wrote: I stand by my opinion: TSLrain played it correctly if he was playing to win. You have to play tvz like that, macro games get you nowhere as Terran
Yeah well that was the OP's point though I assume. I think that the game is in a bit of unfortunate state at the moment in TvZ. But just because it seems this way now doesn't mean it will continue to be even without balance changes. But changes in the patch on the test realm may help improve terran mid-late game without the ability to fungal dropships and especially vikings.
Changing the late game won't change the early game. Even if terran now has a 50% chance of winning late game, they still have like a 75% winning in the early game and 75% > 50%.
I think there is a prisoner's dilemma problem here. Obviously Rain should try to make money. However, cheese more frequent than occasionally is not fun to watch. Therefore, if all players act to make more money, resulting in lots of cheese, their greed will destroy the tournaments and their own source of income. It's the same problem in pollution, makes sense for any individual but not when everyone is doing it.
On December 07 2010 05:01 I_Love_Bacon wrote: The number of people who keep thinking zergs going 14-hatch are being "greedy" is fucking absurd. They are not opening 3 hatch before pool, they're opening hatch first because if they don't it leads to one of the following:
A: Zerg 1 base play is scouted by 1 scv or 1 scan and easily countered. B: A slightly delayed push with more marines/scvs. B: Terran contain at the ramp. C: Terran Expansion that gives him a huge econ advantage.
The only way opening a slower hatch is effective is if your opponent is an idiot and pushes too soon, despite it being obvious you're on one base.
Just want to point out that going one base is different versus opening pool first and transitioning into hatchery at ~20. Its not an auto lose if you do this, seriously.
On December 07 2010 03:12 50bani wrote: I stand by my opinion: TSLrain played it correctly if he was playing to win. You have to play tvz like that, macro games get you nowhere as Terran
Yeah well that was the OP's point though I assume. I think that the game is in a bit of unfortunate state at the moment in TvZ. But just because it seems this way now doesn't mean it will continue to be even without balance changes. But changes in the patch on the test realm may help improve terran mid-late game without the ability to fungal dropships and especially vikings.
Changing the late game won't change the early game. Even if terran now has a 50% chance of winning late game, they still have like a 75% winning in the early game and 75% > 50%.
yes it will. if zerg late game isn't as dominant, they wouldn't risk 14 hatch EVERY game to get the early economic advantage, and will try more early all-in builds.
and if late-game is changed enough to be in T favor in TvZ, Terran might try to fast expand instead, or come up with some mass OC cheese.
On December 07 2010 03:12 50bani wrote: I stand by my opinion: TSLrain played it correctly if he was playing to win. You have to play tvz like that, macro games get you nowhere as Terran
This is the problem. Every race should feel like they stand an equal chance against other races in a heavy macro game. Whether or not this is the case, I don't know as I only play Zerg.
It would appear though that Terrans feel like they can't win in a late game macro battle against Zerg. If terrans really are unable to compete with Zergs in a macro game I think Blizzard should adjust some things to fix this.
i'm actually beginning to think that terran macro isn't the problem so much as the fact that there's no incentive to practice it. even if terran macro were strong enough so that the chance of winning in lategame was always 60%, players would practice early game strategies that would increase the chance of winning to 61%.
I strongly agree with this.. It just feels that no matter what change comes in patch or how the game evolves, Terran is always trying to go for cheesy/all-in strategies that will end the game before any mid/late game..
I think there are several reasons for that..
1) Terran can unlock their tech extremly fast and this leads to variety of all-in strategies during say first 10 minutes.
2) Protoss and Zerg "feels" stronger late game due to replenishing army faster with both warp-in technology and larvae stacking.
3) Zerg being able to tech switch at will between Broodlord/Corruptor and Ultralisk/Zerglings is so scary for Terran, that its just safer to end the game before its actually happening.
There are probably more.. Im not saying those points are balance related, but this is (at least in my mind) what leads to this issue.
14 hatch isn't "greedy", it's not "gaining an advantage", it's necessary to stay even with the Terrans economy due to how powerful the MULE is on a saturated mineral line.
If you want to call 14 hatch "greedy" you need to admit that 15 OC is just as greedy.
suggestions on how to punish greedy 15 OCing Terrans would be much appreciated.
I don't understand people being upset more than the Pro-Players themselves. The way people argue their points in defense of each Pro Player or race is crazy. If this thread was a discussion in a bar in person I would fear a fight breaking out the way people attack each other about a point that no one will come to an agreement on.
Look at all the tournaments of past and all of the cheese and so on. Fans act like the Players hate each other so they feel they must come to their players rescue. When after the match they are doing things like partying in a hotel room on stream. Appearing on SoTG together taking photo's together or are roommates at the next tournament. Pro players maybe upset about the game but not necessarily upset at the player to the point they hate them. Im sure Rain and Nestea are still friends and are still practice partners.
That said its apart of the game Rain did what he must and it worked. Thats it's not like the honor code of progaming includes no cheese. its really not that big of a deal. As chill said do what you must to win money is on the line.
On December 07 2010 04:50 Sm3agol wrote: bunch of shit.
you cleary don't have the capacity to extrapolate scenarios and how they coorelate. If the zerg 'prepares' against this all-in as you say by getting spinecrawlers and spending a lot of larva on zerglings, he loses anyway. The terran just simply DOESN'T allin and now he has a HUGE economic lead which results with a heavy timing attack the zerg cannot defend. The only way for zerg to win is to walk an incredibly fine line of greed. He should hatch and build just enough to defend while still having an economy. going to hard economy = lose, going to hard defense = lose. This in and of itself is the crux of the zerg, when to drone, when to make units. However, this 2rax marine allin shit takes it to a whole new level.
While I do think the sort of play Rain used can be countered by an 11-pool build, that sort of play is pretty sad to see. My sense is that most of the problems terrans experience in the late game results from inexperience in the late game. My suggestion is that terrans try to develop a macro style, even if it means a few ladder losses.
On December 07 2010 05:01 I_Love_Bacon wrote: The number of people who keep thinking zergs going 14-hatch are being "greedy" is fucking absurd. They are not opening 3 hatch before pool, they're opening hatch first because if they don't it leads to one of the following:
A: Zerg 1 base play is scouted by 1 scv or 1 scan and easily countered. B: A slightly delayed push with more marines/scvs. B: Terran contain at the ramp. C: Terran Expansion that gives him a huge econ advantage.
The only way opening a slower hatch is effective is if your opponent is an idiot and pushes too soon, despite it being obvious you're on one base.
Just want to point out that going one base is different versus opening pool first and transitioning into hatchery at ~20. Its not an auto lose if you do this, seriously.
You're right, it's not an auto loss. However, it puts you at a huge disadvantage. You're saying it's ok because you're no longer losing outright... That isn't a good sign.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Actually it is quite impossible to beat since u have to go 14 hatch and 14 hatch is an auto-lose vs scv/marine all in as we saw on steppes of war.
well see here's the thing.
You don't HAVE to go hatch first. I repeat, you do not HAVE to hatch first. Hatch first is a build designed to give an edge over the opponent right away. If he leaves you alone he is behind, period. Pool first into Hatchery is a lot safer but doesn't give you that edge straight away.
I would also like to state the record that most zergs nowadays don't scout with a drone if they go hatch first or plan to. If you send in an overlord in one direction and a drone at 9 in the other, you will scout both the bases in roughly the same time, leaving only the far away cross-position base unscouted. This gives you a 66% chance of scouting what he is doing for only a couple of minerals lost.
I am absolutely baffled when I watch progamers not scouting with a drone when they go hatchery first. Its like the riskiest opening you can open up with but they still believe that the 100 mineral over 2 minutes gained by keeping the drone mining is better than scouting that proxy barracks/forge first sooner which will completely destroy hatch first builds.
I can't fanthom why zergs nowadays think you have to hatch first. Infact, since most of the terrans go for aggressive economy punishing builds, its an advantage if you go pool first since you can hold off the aggression more easily.
For the record, I'm around 1800 diamond zerg ( not like it matters ) who goes pool first vs terran and dronescout on 9, and I still win a lot of my games.
Cause you simply can't hold an 2rax push with larve from 1base. Hell, the terran doesn't even need to kill you when you dont 14 hatch, he can just bunker down your ramp and do whatever he wants since he got a economy advantage. 14hatch is the only way you got enough units to be able to defend so yes, you HAVE to 14 hatch to have a chance.
On December 07 2010 05:07 Irrelevant wrote: If you want to blame anyone, blame Nestea for hatching first and allowing himself to get beat by the same thing 3 times.
Grats to Rain for taking advantage of a greedy Nestea and exposing his weaknesses to advance to the RO4.
i really wish people would stop saying this hatch first isnt greedy. its actually equally economical as 14 pool 16 hatch the difference being you get earlier larva and puts you in a position to more efficiently deal with early pressure/harass
I HATE watching repeated, boring, 'unfair' short games from TvZ - but if its the terran's best shot at winning, how can you not expect them to use that card?
Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame with zerg, especially not with an econ beast zerg.
This is why I dont understand the bunker change, it just promotes this metagame :<
On December 07 2010 05:10 pwadoc wrote: While I do think the sort of play Rain used can be countered by an 11-pool build, that sort of play is pretty sad to see. My sense is that most of the problems terrans experience in the late game results from inexperience in the late game. My suggestion is that terrans try to develop a macro style, even if it means a few ladder losses.
But then you run into the problem with there being little incentive to do so when Zergs keep 14-Hatching and 2-Rax beating 14-Hatch so often.
On December 07 2010 04:50 Sm3agol wrote: What i fail to understand is why zerg consistently fail to prepare for all-ins like this when they KNOW it's coming. They go 14 hatch and........start droning up preparing for the late game half the time? Seriously? I see this in streams and replays ALL the time. 14 hatch against T should go like this. Drone up, get hatch. Have second queen for second hatch ready to go. Spam your produce zergling key for every single larvae you have for the next minute. You know its farking coming, so act like you have map hacks. Its not like Ts can see exactly what you are doing. Now obviously I'm not top diamond, so I can't say I know the exact timings on all this, but it can't be that off. I see streams ALL the time of people losing to this crap with their nat almost saturated, they have gas almost up and everything. Not a spine crawler or mass zergling group in sight. QUIT DRONING UP YOU FARKING IDIOTS. If he marines scv all-ins you, and you have 25 zerglings, you win. If he doesn't, you're still up a base, just drone up from there, your zerglings don't evaporate if the push doesn't come.
cut at 15 drones build 24 zerglings fail vs 2rax into cc
Because so many Ts do that vs zerg now? Id say that easily >50% of Ts do that vs Z on ladder, and in things like GSL, probably more like 80%. He won't know you're massing zerglings unless he gets the perfect scan off, which would mean your zerglings aren't in the right place anyways. Seriously, a rine/scv push is a win or die build. And vs a 14 hatch drone up, its almost a direct counter. While a 14 hatch mass zerg is not even close to all in, and could do enough harass to probably prevent an easy T expo while you drone up. Lets see, 14 hatch, drone up vs a T you are almost certain is going to marine/SCV all-in you, and almost guarantee you will be hard-pressed to hold it all, or.... 14 hatch, zergling up, worst case he FEs, you can still put pressure on him with your zerglings, you have your FE up........and you're headed to a macro game that Zs can always win, everything being equal.
Lets see......why not drone up, Ts need quick easy wins. And its called an all-in for a reason. So beat it, and win? Why is there as issue with this? Is it not an all-in then? If he sends 8 marines and 6 scvs, and you rape it with 20 zerglings and 2 queens.....and he still is ahead? I'm confused.
On December 07 2010 05:07 Irrelevant wrote: If you want to blame anyone, blame Nestea for hatching first and allowing himself to get beat by the same thing 3 times.
Grats to Rain for taking advantage of a greedy Nestea and exposing his weaknesses to advance to the RO4.
i really wish people would stop saying this hatch first isnt greedy. its actually equally economical as 14 pool 16 hatch the difference being you get earlier larva and puts you in a position to more efficiently deal with early pressure/harass
14 hatch is actually safer, not economical....
the more i think about it though, in light of how powerful the pressure of 2 rax is, i wonder if nestea would still have had a better chance of winning without 14 hatching.
edited: out something that i couldnt make sense of
i really wish people would stop saying this hatch first is greedy. its actually less economical than 14 pool 16 hatch the difference being you get own early and puts you in a terrible position to less efficiently deal with early pressure/harass
14 hatch is actually riskier, and barely more economical....
On December 07 2010 05:12 resilve wrote: I HATE watching repeated, boring, 'unfair' short games from TvZ - but if its the terran's best shot at winning, how can you not expect them to use that card?
Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame with zerg, especially not with an econ beast zerg.
This is why I dont understand the bunker change, it just promotes this metagame :<
This is the line of thinking that avilo just wants people to believe.
"Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame".... is simply complaining without merit. Honestly, how many top quality players have you seen go late game TvZ to actually analyze the matchup?
This is the line of thinking I swear most terrans are using when they complain: Late game is hard. More decisions to make and lots of units to control. Early game is ridiculously easy. Therefore, late game favors zerg so I must end it early.
I'm not saying Z isn't favored in the late game. I honestly don't know. I don't think anybody does right now. It has a feeling that zerg might be favored, but given how few quality games and players we see past the 10 minute mark in a tvz, it's not even remotely a closed case.
Serves Nestea right, better player for sure, but 14 hatch?
With the trends especially showing in ro64, you'd think players would wise up by now, but people are stubborn I suppose.
In all seriousness,
Nestea : 14 hatch :: Marineking : marines
Punishment is given cause theres an opening for it, reminds me of when Yellow got bunker rushed 3x by SlayerS`BoxeR. Not once during the set did he bother to try to pool first. BoxeR himself wasn't happy after the win. He knew what he did, but he did it to win. That semi-final lasted only 30 minutes in a bo5 set, I'm surprised people act like this stuff hasn't happened before.
Rain doesn't need to apologize, cause he's in the semi's one step closer to the gold, but he feels guilty cause he feels like he disappointed fans of Starcraft, which in my opinion he really hasn't.
On December 07 2010 04:54 Rekrul wrote: hate the game not the playa
and LOL at posting a public apology about that. what a bitch.
He's not apologising about exploiting the game. He's apologising about not practicing and not being able to show the audience what he's capable of. There's a difference. Some people care about their fans and the fans of other professionals in the sport.
I don't really understand why people are upset. Yea, it's not necessarily the best or most exciting thing to watch. But what is the guy supposed to do? He tried a macro game and realized he was out of his league.
Is he just supposed to bend over and take it because "Nestea is a better player" and oh well, better luck next time? Or is he supposed to fight tooth and nail, doing whatever he can to succeed?
And if Nestea really was so much of a better player, why didn't he old off the cheese?
I guess I just don't understand how Nestea was robbed. It wasn't like he pressed an IWIN button or unplugged his keyboard or something. He used a risky and cheesy strategy, that Nestea could have defended against but failed to.
On December 07 2010 05:12 resilve wrote: I HATE watching repeated, boring, 'unfair' short games from TvZ - but if its the terran's best shot at winning, how can you not expect them to use that card?
Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame with zerg, especially not with an econ beast zerg.
This is why I dont understand the bunker change, it just promotes this metagame :<
This is the line of thinking that avilo just wants people to believe.
"Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame".... is simply complaining without merit. Honestly, how many top quality players have you seen go late game TvZ to actually analyze the matchup?
This is the line of thinking I swear most terrans are using when they complain: Late game is hard. More decisions to make and lots of units to control. Early game is ridiculously easy. Therefore, late game favors zerg so I must end it early.
I'm not saying Z isn't favored in the late game. I honestly don't know. I don't think anybody does right now. It has a feeling that zerg might be favored, but given how few quality games and players we see past the 10 minute mark in a tvz, it's not even remotely a closed case.
But the argument that if it was any good to play to late game vs Zerg then more players would actually do it is pretty strong I think.. You can argument like Idra, that this early game rax pressure is so strong, that there is no reason to avoid it.. But then again, why all Terran can come up with is cheese/all-in patch after patch? Is this race fucking doomed to play first 10 minutes and then give up?
It's absurd to blame professional gamers for using boring, successful strategies. They are not here to entertain us, nor are they here to promote SC2 with exciting games. They are not here to have fun. They are not here to experiment with macro.
They are here to win, because they have given up hours of their lives, much of their emotional energy, and maybe even some of their relationships in order to support themselves. This is their livelihood. It's not like they get paid handsome salaries whether they win or lose, a la NBA or the MLB. These guys HAVE to win to continue. Put yourself in their shoes for one instant and you can see that so clearly. I have no idea what some of you people are thinking blaming the players. It is absurd and completely unsympathetic to them.
Yeah blizzard are at fault this. Terran is just too weak mid/late game on most maps vs zerg. Balance this MU at mid/late game and nerf terran all in rushes by making map sizes bigger,and we would have a much more balanced early, mid and late game, and much more macro oriented game play. But also I suppose the 13g/14p is a much safer opening, and Nestea should prob. not have 14 hatched all games.
Seriously the main problem with builds like this is people's stubborness. Their "build" is a 14 hatch, 15 pool, 16 etc, etc. Then when someone comes up with a build that rapes it, they just cry imba, because their pet build doesn't work vs it. Because whatever would hard counter the build that rapes theirs will be "raped" by -insert hardly ever used BO here- ,despite the fact that it would give them a better chance at winning than the current situation.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Actually it is quite impossible to beat since u have to go 14 hatch and 14 hatch is an auto-lose vs scv/marine all in as we saw on steppes of war.
well see here's the thing.
You don't HAVE to go hatch first. I repeat, you do not HAVE to hatch first. Hatch first is a build designed to give an edge over the opponent right away. If he leaves you alone he is behind, period. Pool first into Hatchery is a lot safer but doesn't give you that edge straight away.
I would also like to state the record that most zergs nowadays don't scout with a drone if they go hatch first or plan to. If you send in an overlord in one direction and a drone at 9 in the other, you will scout both the bases in roughly the same time, leaving only the far away cross-position base unscouted. This gives you a 66% chance of scouting what he is doing for only a couple of minerals lost.
I am absolutely baffled when I watch progamers not scouting with a drone when they go hatchery first. Its like the riskiest opening you can open up with but they still believe that the 100 mineral over 2 minutes gained by keeping the drone mining is better than scouting that proxy barracks/forge first sooner which will completely destroy hatch first builds.
I can't fanthom why zergs nowadays think you have to hatch first. Infact, since most of the terrans go for aggressive economy punishing builds, its an advantage if you go pool first since you can hold off the aggression more easily.
For the record, I'm around 1800 diamond zerg ( not like it matters ) who goes pool first vs terran and dronescout on 9, and I still win a lot of my games.
Cause you simply can't hold an 2rax push with larve from 1base. Hell, the terran doesn't even need to kill you when you dont 14 hatch, he can just bunker down your ramp and do whatever he wants since he got a economy advantage. 14hatch is the only way you got enough units to be able to defend so yes, you HAVE to 14 hatch to have a chance.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is it easier for the Terran to "bunker down your ramp" if you pool first? I guess I could be not understanding what you mean by bunker down a ramp, but I assume it means build bunkers at the bottom of it to block you from leaving, but I still don't understand how it would be easier to do against pool first if it meant anything else that had to do with the Terran being at or near your ramp in any way. You are really making me feel like I'm missing some huge information in playing Zerg in this game, and I would really appreciate it if someone could fill me in.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
I agree completely. I actually love cheese games, they are really exciting! I feel the adrenaline rush for both players. Short games, long games, I enjoy them all!
I think the main reason people aren't seeing how the argument of "14 hatch is actually safer" is because people haven't seen many attempts to do otherwise in high-profile matches. People see Zergs doing the 14 Hatch opening nearly every game; people see Zergs LOSE with that 14 Hatch opening nearly every game. And the viewers don't see any attempt to change that even after seeing so many Zergs lose to 14 Hatch when there are alternatives. And that IS a legitimate argument.
If people see a high-profile match (NOT just some replay from a practice game) where they can clearly see the reasoning behind this, people may be more inclined to believe that 14 hatch is the best opener. But until then, there are a lot more examples of why 14-Hatching fails to reference, leading more people to think that 14-Hatch isn't the best opener. Try to see it from that perspective.
On December 07 2010 05:15 Irrelevant wrote: i really wish people would stop saying this hatch first is greedy. its actually less economical than 14 pool 16 hatch the difference being you get own early and puts you in a terrible position to less efficiently deal with early pressure/harass
14 hatch is actually riskier, and barely more economical....
you're quite the jester
and good job contradicting yourself. why dont you go fly over to korea and coach these noobs up then?
On December 07 2010 05:12 resilve wrote: I HATE watching repeated, boring, 'unfair' short games from TvZ - but if its the terran's best shot at winning, how can you not expect them to use that card?
Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame with zerg, especially not with an econ beast zerg.
This is why I dont understand the bunker change, it just promotes this metagame :<
This is the line of thinking that avilo just wants people to believe.
"Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame".... is simply complaining without merit. Honestly, how many top quality players have you seen go late game TvZ to actually analyze the matchup?
This is the line of thinking I swear most terrans are using when they complain: Late game is hard. More decisions to make and lots of units to control. Early game is ridiculously easy. Therefore, late game favors zerg so I must end it early.
I'm not saying Z isn't favored in the late game. I honestly don't know. I don't think anybody does right now. It has a feeling that zerg might be favored, but given how few quality games and players we see past the 10 minute mark in a tvz, it's not even remotely a closed case.
But the argument that if it was any good to play to late game vs Zerg then more players would actually do it? I think this is a pretty strong argument.. You can argument like Idra, that this early game rax pressure is so strong, that there is no reason to avoid it.. But then again, why all Terran can come up with is cheese/all-in patch after patch? Is this race fucking doomed to play first 10 minutes and then give up?
Why let the game go long when you can literally end it in less than 10 minutes with an insanely high win rate? Terran for the longest time have had no reason to go to late game with zerg. They've been doing abusive strategies on 1 or 2 base since the beta. I'm not faulting the Terrans for trying to win, but they're constantly changing and adapting and I don't think a single strat has actually focused on a late game.
small edit: Let's say terrans are favored in the late game a little bit... they would still be 2-raxing. Why? Because right now it's a lot more than a little bit of a favorite in using it on the right maps or spawns.
On December 07 2010 05:01 I_Love_Bacon wrote: The number of people who keep thinking zergs going 14-hatch are being "greedy" is fucking absurd. They are not opening 3 hatch before pool, they're opening hatch first because if they don't it leads to one of the following:
A: Zerg 1 base play is scouted by 1 scv or 1 scan and easily countered. B: A slightly delayed push with more marines/scvs. B: Terran contain at the ramp. C: Terran Expansion that gives him a huge econ advantage.
The only way opening a slower hatch is effective is if your opponent is an idiot and pushes too soon, despite it being obvious you're on one base.
Just want to point out that going one base is different versus opening pool first and transitioning into hatchery at ~20. Its not an auto lose if you do this, seriously.
You're right, it's not an auto loss. However, it puts you at a huge disadvantage. You're saying it's ok because you're no longer losing outright... That isn't a good sign.
It might be because I don't fight GSL caliber terrans, but I really do not think that going hatchery after pool isn't a huge disadvantage. You get your zerglings out faster, you get your queen out faster, and if he is scv rushing you get your spinecrawler out faster.
And to the other guy claiming that the terran can just bunker you off and do whatever he want. That raises the question to me why you didn't scout that bunker in the first place.
I would like to ask the kind posters to provide a replay where a zerg who went pool first into a little bit later hatchery lost to a 2 rax push and it wasnt due to his own incompetance of not scouting bunkers or the terrans base. If you can provide me this , I will promptly shut up and keep quiet in the corner. But until that, I stand firm that going pool first isnt as all in or a huge disadvantage as the other posters make it out to be, however stubborn that may be.
I have trouble understanding what nestea was thinking about going 15hatch every game even on steps.. its just not defendable even if he is much better, why not opt for the more safe option and outplay him in the midgame instead..just my opinion.
rain shouldnt have to apologize for anything, ofcourse if your opponent takes huge risks early on you should be able to advantage of that, anything else is stupid. Btw nestea is my favorite in GSL so no bias here, I am also a zerg player.
you play to win the game. Considering the prize money at stake, how can anybody blame TSL_Rain for cheesing all the way to victory? If Nestea was a better player then he would win. Simple as that. Rain chose the prevailing strategy and executed it near perfection. Therefore he deserves the victory.
On December 07 2010 04:54 Rekrul wrote: hate the game not the playa
and LOL at posting a public apology about that. what a bitch.
He's not apologising about exploiting the game. He's apologising about not practicing and not being able to show the audience what he's capable of. There's a difference. Some people care about their fans and the fans of other professionals in the sport.
you don't see the San Antonio Spurs apologizing for being absolutely boring to watch yet winning. it's a competition, winning is the only thing people should care about.
i don't understand why people are raging against people who recognise that they won't win in a macro game, so play in such a way that it doesn't become a macro game. call it cheese if you like, but there's serious cash on the line and every player should absolutely be playing in such a way that it maximises their chances of winning
On December 07 2010 05:01 I_Love_Bacon wrote: The number of people who keep thinking zergs going 14-hatch are being "greedy" is fucking absurd. They are not opening 3 hatch before pool, they're opening hatch first because if they don't it leads to one of the following:
A: Zerg 1 base play is scouted by 1 scv or 1 scan and easily countered. B: A slightly delayed push with more marines/scvs. B: Terran contain at the ramp. C: Terran Expansion that gives him a huge econ advantage.
The only way opening a slower hatch is effective is if your opponent is an idiot and pushes too soon, despite it being obvious you're on one base.
Just want to point out that going one base is different versus opening pool first and transitioning into hatchery at ~20. Its not an auto lose if you do this, seriously.
You're right, it's not an auto loss. However, it puts you at a huge disadvantage. You're saying it's ok because you're no longer losing outright... That isn't a good sign.
Around the 2000 Diamond level, against Terran players I've gone up against that do the marine aggression build, Hatching at 20 on nearly any 2-player map against a 2 rax push is not winnable. If the T has even mediocre micro and identifies that late of a hatch you're going to have to all-in because he'll bunker block your ramp before you can break it. You have a 50/50 shot he abandons the bunkers and pulls back and you get a chance to baneling bust him. The other 50% he defends the bunkers with a couple of marines while building a CC and adding even more marines behind a wall. You can either all-in or pray that you can somehow macro from way behind against a 4 rax enough to not die to it. A part of me wonders how well 11 pool 16-18 hatch can handle 2 rax marine all-ins. I know I still struggle against a practice friend of mine who basically does the Foxer build a lot when I go 11/18. If you get forced to all-in and see a few marauders on hold position in front of the supply depot wall-in, just gg.
On December 07 2010 05:12 resilve wrote: I HATE watching repeated, boring, 'unfair' short games from TvZ - but if its the terran's best shot at winning, how can you not expect them to use that card?
Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame with zerg, especially not with an econ beast zerg.
This is why I dont understand the bunker change, it just promotes this metagame :<
This is the line of thinking that avilo just wants people to believe.
"Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame".... is simply complaining without merit. Honestly, how many top quality players have you seen go late game TvZ to actually analyze the matchup?
This is the line of thinking I swear most terrans are using when they complain: Late game is hard. More decisions to make and lots of units to control. Early game is ridiculously easy. Therefore, late game favors zerg so I must end it early.
I'm not saying Z isn't favored in the late game. I honestly don't know. I don't think anybody does right now. It has a feeling that zerg might be favored, but given how few quality games and players we see past the 10 minute mark in a tvz, it's not even remotely a closed case.
But the argument that if it was any good to play to late game vs Zerg then more players would actually do it? I think this is a pretty strong argument.. You can argument like Idra, that this early game rax pressure is so strong, that there is no reason to avoid it.. But then again, why all Terran can come up with is cheese/all-in patch after patch? Is this race fucking doomed to play first 10 minutes and then give up?
Why let the game go long when you can literally end it in less than 10 minutes with an insanely high win rate? Terran for the longest time have had no reason to go to late game with zerg. They've been doing abusive strategies on 1 or 2 base since the beta. I'm not faulting the Terrans for trying to win, but they're constantly changing and adapting and I don't think a single strat has actually focused on a late game.
You are absolutely right and I agree with you.. My only question is, why there isnt a single strat that actually focused on a late game? Is it because every singe time there is a new all-in/cheese strat that means "ez mode" for Terrans? Do you really think that those pro players that are paid for results concider nothing more than 5 min all-in?
He's not apologising about exploiting td you don't see the San Antonio Spurs apologizing for being absolutely boring to watch yet winning. it's a competition, winning is the only thing people should care about.
You do see MMA fighters apologizing (to fans) for not putting on exciting fights...
I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
And ultimately Rain did what he felt would give the best chance of winning, which happens to be the only reason why he is there. To win. It sucks that this has to translate into cheese that has allowed someone who is widely regarded as a lesser player to win over a better one.
The problem i see is that we just had a worse player winning. + The player who said that he didn't even have time to practice, so he just did this. + NesTea knew what was coming.
That is a clear balance problem in my eyes. If you are a better player that is constantly practicing vs the cheese build that you KNOW that is coming. You should not lose. Thats just it. Not discussion about it.
Whether late game ZvT is imbalanced towards zerg, or it's just that T refuse to practice macro games as much as Zerg , when they have so much safer and easier time in early game is another question. And That SHOULD be addressed after some nerfs to marine/scv all ins.
I am all FOR keeping cheese/rushes/all ins in the game, but it should not be so easy/effective to do even when scouted and prepared for.
P.S I don't know why are ppl still getting impressed with marine micro. (not counting micro vs banelings)
On December 07 2010 05:20 University wrote: It's absurd to blame professional gamers for using boring, successful strategies. They are not here to entertain us, nor are they here to promote SC2 with exciting games. They are not here to have fun. They are not here to experiment with macro.
They are here to win, because they have given up hours of their lives, much of their emotional energy, and maybe even some of their relationships in order to support themselves. This is their livelihood. It's not like they get paid handsome salaries whether they win or lose, a la NBA or the MLB. These guys HAVE to win to continue. Put yourself in their shoes for one instant and you can see that so clearly. I have no idea what some of you people are thinking blaming the players. It is absurd and completely unsympathetic to them.
i think one of the reasons people are angry is because the investment into SC2 as a spectator sport was based on expectations that it would be fun to watch. unfortunately as chance would have it right now many of the games are not fun to watch.
of course, there is no reason in blaming the players whatsoever, since we didn't ask them to perform a play for us.
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
i wouldn't call nestea the better player if he thinks he could and ended up failing to stop an all in with hatch first 3 times. i wouldn't even be crying imba because all nestea did was try to hatch first every game and didn't even try to mix it up a bit
On December 07 2010 03:12 50bani wrote: I stand by my opinion: TSLrain played it correctly if he was playing to win. You have to play tvz like that, macro games get you nowhere as Terran
On December 07 2010 05:28 Gotmog wrote: The problem i see is that we just had a worse player winning. + The player who said that he didn't even have time to practice, so he just did this. + NesTea knew what was coming.
That is a clear balance problem in my eyes. If you are a better player that is constantly practicing vs the cheese build that you KNOW that is coming. You should not lose. Thats just it. Not discussion about it.
By that reasoning, then it's NesTea's fault for losing, not balance. Especially when you factor in things like him making a Queen instead of a Spinecrawler.
It doesn't make him the worse player, but NesTea absolutely deserved to lose that series. He just kept on being greedy, and he lost every time he was too greedy.
What are the odds of a T winning vs Z in a late macro game? Its not that we dont practice it, trust me. We do... And we get sad results 80% of the time.
On December 07 2010 04:54 Rekrul wrote: hate the game not the playa
and LOL at posting a public apology about that. what a bitch.
He's not apologising about exploiting the game. He's apologising about not practicing and not being able to show the audience what he's capable of. There's a difference. Some people care about their fans and the fans of other professionals in the sport.
you don't see the San Antonio Spurs apologizing for being absolutely boring to watch yet winning. it's a competition, winning is the only thing people should care about.
What? Where do you go about telling people (whether they are spectators or players), what they should care about?
I'm not saying you shouldn't play to win (read my posts carefully), and Rain clearly does play to win. I'm saying he cares about his fans and his career and his image because... uh... shit, cause people care about those things.
I don't know about San Antonio Spurs but Allardyce at Newcastle, Megson at Bolton, even Dunga at Brazil all got fired for not playing the style of football that the fans wanted to see; despite decent results. Maybe it's a culture thing, I dunno, but I don't think you're a `bitch' for looking after your career.
On December 07 2010 05:28 Gotmog wrote: The problem i see is that we just had a worse player winning. + The player who said that he didn't even have time to practice, so he just did this. + NesTea knew what was coming.
That is a clear balance problem in my eyes. If you are a better player that is constantly practicing vs the cheese build that you KNOW that is coming. You should not lose. Thats just it. Not discussion about it.
By that reasoning, then it's NesTea's fault for losing, not balance. Especially when you factor in things like him making a Queen instead of a Spinecrawler.
Seriously, I still find it worthy to pay the amount even though its an allin winning match. Instead of blaming Rain so much, why don't NesTea go for a different strategy instead of spawning queen all of the time when he sees what Rain is doing? More Spine crawlers and buy some time with his drones or something.
I'm not a pro but I still find it interesting to watch that. Allins or not, it's still a win. Cheesy or not, Rain is already in the semi.
P/s: just my personal opinion.. don't have to overreact and flame me.
On December 07 2010 05:12 resilve wrote: I HATE watching repeated, boring, 'unfair' short games from TvZ - but if its the terran's best shot at winning, how can you not expect them to use that card?
Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame with zerg, especially not with an econ beast zerg.
This is why I dont understand the bunker change, it just promotes this metagame :<
This is the line of thinking that avilo just wants people to believe.
"Clearly the feel they cant compete past midgame".... is simply complaining without merit. Honestly, how many top quality players have you seen go late game TvZ to actually analyze the matchup?
This is the line of thinking I swear most terrans are using when they complain: Late game is hard. More decisions to make and lots of units to control. Early game is ridiculously easy. Therefore, late game favors zerg so I must end it early.
I'm not saying Z isn't favored in the late game. I honestly don't know. I don't think anybody does right now. It has a feeling that zerg might be favored, but given how few quality games and players we see past the 10 minute mark in a tvz, it's not even remotely a closed case.
But the argument that if it was any good to play to late game vs Zerg then more players would actually do it? I think this is a pretty strong argument.. You can argument like Idra, that this early game rax pressure is so strong, that there is no reason to avoid it.. But then again, why all Terran can come up with is cheese/all-in patch after patch? Is this race fucking doomed to play first 10 minutes and then give up?
Why let the game go long when you can literally end it in less than 10 minutes with an insanely high win rate? Terran for the longest time have had no reason to go to late game with zerg. They've been doing abusive strategies on 1 or 2 base since the beta. I'm not faulting the Terrans for trying to win, but they're constantly changing and adapting and I don't think a single strat has actually focused on a late game.
You are absolutely right and I agree with you.. My only question is, why there isnt a single strat that actually focused on a late game? Is it because every singe time there is a new all-in/cheese strat that means "ez mode" for Terrans? Do you really think that those pro players that are paid for results concider nothing more than 5 min all-in?
Easier to pull off and exceptionally powerful. Remember that a lot of players (all, actually) aren't playing this game close to perfectly yet. Because of that, that means there is a lot of inferior players having to play their betters. That means they have to take any advantage they have and extend it... in this case early game micro and massive amounts of aggression.
Wow, this is fucked-up as hell. The whole point is that he apologised for winning just because Korean Community doesn't like short/All-in games. So "smart"...
On December 07 2010 03:16 Lumin wrote: The way the current meta-game is set, Top Zergs are rarely ever beaten if allowed to push and macro into late game. Their weakness is early game, everyone knows this general concept.
All the guy wanted to do was to capitalize on that weakness. Do I blame him? Nope! Like 50bani said above me, he's playing to win. IMNestea didn't have to 15 Hatch every game, greedy build, he gets punished!
How is this meta-game at all? Using the word "game" makes 999999x more sense here, there's nothing meta about "this strategy is good at this point in this matchup". NOTHING.
Actually metagame is important since this rush is strongest against 14/15 hatch. He knows that he is going to 14\15 hatch based on information "outside" the game. He knows how nestea plays and is hard countering his play. I play zerg, and if you are going to 14/15 hatch every single game against a terran who has proven over and over he will just all-in, maybe it's time for a speedling expand.
More on the topic. His baneling micro was horrendous each of the games, he just kept saccing them into tanks/marauders what have you that isn't marines. He always got 2 queens when he knew the rush was coming, and didn't bother to bring both down the ramp either. The better option is to get 1 queen at the natural and a spine crawler. He was being greedy, and rain's strategy choice hard countered him.
Not only that, but he fast expo'ed on steppes. He fast expoed on Lost Temple (and the only reason he didn't get absolutely stomped early on was because rain gave him chances in how he played early). Why is this seen as something viable to the top zergs? Is there REALLY a huge economic disadvantage in the mid game from saving your expansion for a few seconds later?
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
Where did Jinro talk about this? I am interested in reading.
Why do people using that "Oh I paid $20 to see good games, not this all-in bs". You paid gom, not the players. They don't get a penny of that and are not obligated to play the game in a specific way.
First off, I have not played much as a Zerg, and certainly not at the level these guys are playing it. As such my statements may be way off, and I stand to be corrected.
However, after seeing the x'th zerg 14 hatch on Steppes and then, surprise surprise, die to a 2rax all-in, shouldnt some of them learn the lessons and, you know, not 14 hatch? Is it really such a hopeless situation if you pool first? Do they survive the 2 rax in practise but just messed up here? If I go Nexus first every single time in PvP I wouldnt blame the opponents for taking advantage of that the same time everytime... the fault is with me right?
Again, i don't have the experience these guys have so I assume I'm wrong, but it does seem... odd.
On December 07 2010 05:37 drlame wrote: Don't worry though, if all the changes in the PTR-patch make it, we won't be seeing any bunker rushes anymore. + Show Spoiler +
Obvious sarcasm, and I am aware of the reason Blizzard lowered build time on bunkers, don't bring that discussion to this thread
Anyways, I agree with the OP, from a consumer/spectators point of view it was very unsatisfactory but Rain shouldn't be the target for hate.
I was just going to say something about that. Why would they ever think about lowering the time? I have never seen a time a bunker is not finished by 5 seconds and the Terran loses because of it. I have only seen proxy bunkers get their scv with 5 seconds less.
Because of the prize pool structure and GOM's commercialization schemes, it's not hard to imagine why a player wouldn't abuse a certain aspect of the game that gives him a great chance of winning. Being a "consistent good player" is valued in SCBW scene because you have many leagues (OSL, MSL, GSM, SPL - with WL rounds) and you get more than one chance at winning. Reputation and demonstration of your skill (in both micro and macro, all-ins and strategic plays, etc.) are important in SCBW. GSL.. it's essentially a really slim chance at winning it big with no guarantee that you'll be back around the same spot next time around. Hell, if I was good at one all-in (I should really practice one lol) and I kept winning using it in a league that I'm pretty sure I won't get a second chance at, I'll be doing it until the end, the very end. The BITTER END
Since all the zerg are out, I guess this not longer apply. But what if your favourite star Jinro has a shot to take the first place, if he goes all in at the final. Would you support him so? Will it change your mindset about Jinro? I want to hear this from the Jinro's fan, and mind you this could be the first time that a foreigner take such a prestige reward at Korea.
People keep saying that you have to 14 hatch to have a chance against Terran, but Julyzerg doesn't feel that way. Why is nobody looking to him for ideas on ZvT?
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Thats actually a bullshit. Marine/SCV all in isn`t stoppable by 14 hatch and u have to go 14 hatch because pool first is even worse.
This is laughable...
What is laughable about that
This. Please stop talking about other race if you dont play it, its actually better for everyone if you try to explain things that you actually understand, like the rush from T point of view, but dont go and make random asumptions, because Ret and IdRa, who are top zerg players(Pretty sure they are better that you and obviously better than me) have been figuring out the better way to stop it without losing the eco game, and 14/15 hatch is better than pool first, because you cant afford enough speedlings to stop this of one hatch, so its actually better to expand first to get creep in your natural so you can put some spines, at least this is actually true in the maps with a not exposed natural, dont know about their opinion on maps like xelnaga, but please, listen to the pros, they know what they are talking about
As for the games, i just dislike marines/scv all-in, they arent that fun to watch, its fun when you see it from time to time, but not every single game, and i dont think that you cant compete in the mid/late game f you know how to play, just see Nada vs Leenock, Jinro vs Moon, or even Lenock vs Clide, even if that one isnt the best example, i dont see Clide loosing that badly to say that its impossible to macro, i think its more that the W-L % that this guys gets from doing this kind of all-in is pretty high, so they prefer not to risk the series against a player that they think that are better on the macro game.
I just hope that some terrans come out with sick macro games, i think they can show us great things!
Rain wanted to win. NesTea wanted to win. Rain used a strat that would do so. If he knows he will be weaker in the later game, then he'll do all he can to make sure it doesn't get there. You see it in sports everywhere, except for maybe this "MMA showbiz" stuff. These players are playing for income and playing to win. All-ins are sometimes more exciting than the "longer" games. More micro, more intensive play, single units count much more. Later on, it's just who has more expo's/better compo's/more units. 200/200 isn't always exciting.
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
Where did Jinro talk about this? I am interested in reading.
On December 07 2010 05:43 furymonkey wrote: Since all the zerg are out, I guess this not longer apply. But what if your favourite star Jinro has a shot to take the first place, if he goes all in at the final. Would you support him so? Will it change your mindset about Jinro? I want to hear this from the Jinro's fan, and mind you this could be the first time that a foreigner take such a prestige reward at Korea.
Although I'm not a Jinro fan, I will say that it doesn't really matter what strategy he uses. If he 2 rax all ins every game and wins, then why the hell would you not? It's all about winning, why would you jeopardize your chances by doing something more flashy? You do what you think you're best at. Kwanro's good at making zerglings, so he makes zerglings. Rain's good at TvZ pressure builds, pulling all in. And he's shown that he can win games. I'm pretty sure many of you would do anything you could to take home the prize at the end of the day.
Hell, if Rain did the same strat every single game, 2 rax marine scv all in and won, I'd just give props to him, cause he did what needed to be done.
I dont get it Rain even tried to put a show round 1 ok let's try to macro epic fail ok i will cheese in round 2 and get round 3 straight round 2 ok round 3 epic fail .... ok i just want win 90k usd ... round 4 and 5 ...
On December 07 2010 05:43 PanzerKing wrote: People keep saying that you have to 14 hatch to have a chance against Terran, but Julyzerg doesn't feel that way. Why is nobody looking to him for ideas on ZvT?
Well, it would make more sense to look at FD or NesTea for ZvT. As their ZvT ( also idrA's ) is off the charts. I feel like JulyZerg hasn't made a big enough name for himself for people to look at compared to FruitDealer and Nestea.
Having that said, I think Julyzerg is a freaking amazing player and I think people will look at him for great strategies in the near future. Just not yet.
the problem i see with the game is that if Terran send his SCVs with his marines it's not all-in becouse Terran has mules. If zerg or protoss send their drones/probes it's all in becouse they will have no income at all. Yes it may look like terran have hard time mid to late game vs zerg but I don't realy think this is true. In fact I think it's balanced If terran exploit their advantage in the early and mid game and macro and expand T is even to Z. The problem lays in that T players got used to easy mode in the few months after release. When the patches nerfed the reapers and after roaches got viable again. The easy mode become 2 or 4 rax + scv timing push. If the bunker build time from the PTR goes into the game I don't want to think how deadly this terran scv marine bunker rush will be.
There's nothing wrong with 2 barracks scv rush. If the Zerg player is getting greedy by going 14 hatch then you punish him. Otherwise, you will lose the mid/late game as Terran. Everybody already knows this.
On December 07 2010 05:43 PanzerKing wrote: People keep saying that you have to 14 hatch to have a chance against Terran, but Julyzerg doesn't feel that way. Why is nobody looking to him for ideas on ZvT?
People are making the argument that 14 Hatch is safest against 2 Rax. JulyZerg isn't the best example since he faced only 1 Terran in the GSL. aLivefoU in the Ro32. And he went 12 Rax 13 Refinery.
A win is a win, no matter how ugly it is. If there was 90k on the line, and you're down 1-2, what are you gonna do? The strat that won you a game, or the same style that lost you two games? Game 5, 2-2 cause you rushed twice and won when you rushed both times. What are you gonna do? Hey, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
what has a greater chance of winning you the game when playing tvz? cheese or straight up macro? both can be +EV but the play with the higher EV will be used every single time.
If all the fans see are 5 min games that are uninteresting, then they're not going to watch it. The tourny's prize comes from its advertising and ticket sales. If the fans don't support it, the thing collapses.
On December 07 2010 05:43 PanzerKing wrote: People keep saying that you have to 14 hatch to have a chance against Terran, but Julyzerg doesn't feel that way. Why is nobody looking to him for ideas on ZvT?
People are making the argument that 14 Hatch is safest against 2 Rax. JulyZerg isn't the best example since he faced only 1 Terran in the GSL. aLivefoU in the Ro32. And he went 12 Rax 13 Refinery.
The point is that July went pool first before scouting T, afaik, so he obviously feels its the better opening regardless of what T does. That merits consideration, imo.
Blaming rain for trying to win by any cost ist the dumbest thing I ever read ( ok not THE dumbest ). It's his job too try everything neccesairy to win. Blame the balance, the maps or even the races but don't blame the player.
I also want to point out that this scv's all-ins are possible too stop. They sure are hard to defend, but nestea did also mistakes which costed him the match
On December 07 2010 05:55 dfgman wrote: If all the fans see are 5 min games that are uninteresting, then they're not going to watch it. The tourny's prize comes from its advertising and ticket sales. If the fans don't support it, the thing collapses.
I doubt they'd care about that when all they're probably thinking about is "Got a chance to win 90k this season. I could care less if next season doesn't happen. I'm gonna try and win this season's prize."
Hell, I'm pretty sure none of that runs through their heads. The only thing that might faze them would be "How would I be perceived by fans and peers?"
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
How does that make any sense at all? That's like saying you can't stop a roach rush unless you 1rax reaper FE...
If Nestea can't beat cheese/all-ins, he doesn't deserve to take the win. Only the results matter, not the way to achieve said results. If there is someone to blame it's Nestea for not being prepared or good enough to beat these strats. I mean, if Rain can get away with easy wins, good for him. It's not Rain who needs to change his strategy obviously...why fix something that ain't broken.
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
How does that make any sense at all? That's like saying you can't stop a roach rush unless you 1rax reaper FE...
The difference be, you get more larva going into combat units with an addtionnal hatchery, Fe for zerg is the same as adding productions facilities for the other races.
Edit : let's not forget about the ramp choke and the creep advantage.
Blah! All this talk about TvZ impossible for Terran in the late game. Just look at Jinro, he's awesome at it and he's doing very well in the GSL.
Early game is too dramatic over all IMO. That combined with the non-downvoting system in the GSL makes for a lot of boring, repetitive 2rax cheese. And I feel like even if the Zerg defends it well, he is still behind.
I agree with the previous poster who said that if you spot a cheesy all in the early stages of the build, then the favorable spot should go to the player who is not going all in. To my knowledge, hatch first is the only reasonable way to play as Zerg, any other builds has to do huge economical damage or you are way behind.
Apart from the few awesome MACRO TvZ's(Jinro, Clide), the GSL has been a very disappointing all in cheese fest.
Let's hope Blizzard realizes how boring this is to watch.
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
How does that make any sense at all? That's like saying you can't stop a roach rush unless you 1rax reaper FE...
Thats because you probably don't quite understand how zerg works.
How and Where will you plant that sunken ? How will you transfer your queen ? How will you get creep speed bonus for a slightly easier chase with lings. How will you stop bunker wall in. Where will you get your economy from when T has mules and non stop scv production ? Where will you get your production from ?
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
How does that make any sense at all? That's like saying you can't stop a roach rush unless you 1rax reaper FE...
I think the point they're trying to make is that you need the extra larvae from a quick hatch and the drones at your nat instead of your main, so they can be pulled when needed, as well as greater creep spread at the nat. However, as I said before, Julyzerg obviously feels that pool first is smarter in TvZ, and he's the most accomplished SC1 Zerg to have switched over to SC2.
On December 07 2010 06:04 Dudemeister wrote: Blah! All this talk about TvZ impossible for Terran in the late game. Just look at Jinro, he's awesome at it and he's doing very well in the GSL.
Jinro will have to take down a top-tier Z like Nestea, Fruitdealer, Leenock etc., before most people will put faith in his style. Like it or not, Moon is a second-tier Zerg right now, since he only plays SC2 part-time.
Yes he should apologize for doing a build that his opponent didn't know how to stop, despite it being the most popular Terran build in the GSL so far.
It it cheesy, it is stupid, and it is also very stoppable. Sure he won't get far in his pro career by doing only abusive cheesy builds, but he sure got far in this GSL doing it = cash moneys.
Apologizing maintains good PR for the fans who were disappointed/upset that he won all 3 games with all-in, but like most people I don't think he did anything wrong. In games where he wasn't very aggressive to Nestea's hatch opening he would lose, so he quickly learned from that and won with 3 all-ins. If my opponent did the same openings 5 times in a row and I had a strategy that would counter it every single time, I would probably use it too.
All I ask rain is to make the transition that foxer did from ro64 gsl 2 onward. Which means he just takes me by surprise and shows he is indeed worthy of gsl caliber play
On December 07 2010 05:43 PanzerKing wrote: People keep saying that you have to 14 hatch to have a chance against Terran, but Julyzerg doesn't feel that way. Why is nobody looking to him for ideas on ZvT?
People are making the argument that 14 Hatch is safest against 2 Rax. JulyZerg isn't the best example since he faced only 1 Terran in the GSL. aLivefoU in the Ro32. And he went 12 Rax 13 Refinery.
The point is that July went pool first before scouting T, afaik, so he obviously feels its the better opening regardless of what T does. That merits consideration, imo.
It's something to consider, but not something you could use in the current argument that people are making that "2-Rax does even better against anything that isn't 14 Hatch" until you see how successful JulyZerg's build does vs. 2 Rax.
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
Maybe it is the case, maybe its not. If Nestea had done something other than 14 hatch and done it competently and still failed to hold off the all-in then we could legitimately start talking about whether or not blizzard should step in and start using "can't" in all caps. But we'll never know now in the GSL3s because Nestea 14 hatched himself out of the tournament without even bothering trying something new.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the 2 rax mass marine play was used by Foxer in GSL2 for the exact purpose of exploiting the 14 hatch build. It's original and primary function is to defeat that build order. Its obviously evolved a bit more since but the fact remains 14 hatch is the 2 rax's preferred target. Is the concept of one build order designed to defeat another and working really a new mind-shattering concept?
Here's what I don't think most people seem to understand: A competitive real-time strategy game could theoretically be perfect out of the box and it would still not be balanced. Why? Because the player base doesn't understand the game well enough and doesn't play it well enough to execute that full range of optimal strategies. Even right now, they don't. Because in three months, it's very possible Zergs may be looking back on this era of immediate-all-in play and laughing at what they discovered to beat it.
How long did it take for Brood War to find its niche? About four years. How long did it take Warcraft III to find its niche? About four years. I completely expect that Starcraft II will take about the same time. That's why I'm a bit confused by the reaction to the recent GSL games. Everybody should have known this was going to happen. There's going to be a lot of growing pains. Think everybody should go ahead and come to terms with that right now.
I don't understand why people rage over all these "cheese", sure, losing to an scv all-in is not very fun but we talking $80k+ on the line here, if you were in Rain's shoes what would you do?
Play honorably and take it to a macro game where the chance of you losing is pretty high? Or play a shorter game relying either on scv all-ins or quick rushes?
On December 07 2010 05:43 furymonkey wrote: Since all the zerg are out, I guess this not longer apply. But what if your favourite star Jinro has a shot to take the first place, if he goes all in at the final. Would you support him so? Will it change your mindset about Jinro? I want to hear this from the Jinro's fan, and mind you this could be the first time that a foreigner take such a prestige reward at Korea.
it wouldn't be the first time a foreigner won something in korea, Grrrr won Hanaro OSL back in 2000
Is there some illusion that there wasn't cheese in BW? Also perhaps it says something about the power of zerg macro that terran "pros" are willing/wanting to go all in before the mid game?
Still, you play to win the game.
I wouldn't have apologized for shit; I hope he proxy two raxes in the finals for all I care, at least I see his desire to win.
You people that say omg greedy zergs going hatch before pool, dont have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Like many people in this thread and in other threads said, including pros like ret and idra, you need the second hatch to be able to defend terran agression and stop wall ins, stop saying clueless shit.
this is the dumbest thing ever. The man found a strategy that wins. Nestea held off the initial push, and had time to put down a second spinecrawler, but decided to drone.
I like how he gets crucified but Foxer becomes a hero for his 1 dimensional play.
For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
On December 07 2010 05:54 Roffles wrote: Just a few more statements.
A win is a win, no matter how ugly it is. If there was 90k on the line, and you're down 1-2, what are you gonna do? The strat that won you a game, or the same style that lost you two games? Game 5, 2-2 cause you rushed twice and won when you rushed both times. What are you gonna do? Hey, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
I do agree with you here. Everyone (well not everyone haha) knows how Flash started of playing his games. The guy was heaps and miles away from the genius he became later on. He won games, but it wasnt nearly as appreciated by the viewers. Only later on when he pushed the limit to no ends and negated the risky part with his sick sick game sense people started to get what's happening here.
I know you people might think this is boring and unhealthy for a tournament. But for the grand scheme of things, timings like this are necessary for the evolution of the game. And I'd rather see sharp timings then some plushbat fights, like chill said, you will only appreciate the longer games even more.
You think boxer was all praised by the viewers after his bunker rushes against yellow? Think again.
The issue is that Rain had absolutely no shot of winning a single game unless he cheesed hardcore. He isn't even close to NesTea's level. That's why I find it irritating that he now moves on to the semi.
If Jinro cheesed, I wouldn't really care, because I know he actually has enough skill to win a long macro game too, unlike Rain who has no shot whatsoever.
On December 07 2010 05:43 furymonkey wrote: Since all the zerg are out, I guess this not longer apply. But what if your favourite star Jinro has a shot to take the first place, if he goes all in at the final. Would you support him so? Will it change your mindset about Jinro? I want to hear this from the Jinro's fan, and mind you this could be the first time that a foreigner take such a prestige reward at Korea.
Here is the true tragedy of today's GSL results. We won't get to see how well Jinro's non-2 rax marine rush/all-in playstyle stacks up to FD or Nestea's. A macro Terran vs macro Zerg to see if there is a chance for terran to win the macro battle.
I'm irritated about people saying hatch first is the reason why zerg lose without having reading anything about it or testing it.
Anyway, I don't think Rain has any reasons to apologize, the goal always has been to win, no matter how. If an all-in can make you win, then do it, it's the game.
Let's reexamine 12/14 further to make sure we're not misconceiving it's goals and what Terran gives up by doing this.
T = Tactics, if they fight, who probably wins S = Strategics, if we continue the game, this advantage can be converted into a TA later into the game
G = Global, if we threw every unit/building into the equation L = Local, if we include only in our analysis only those artifacts/buildings/units at a specific location T = Technological, what are the players teching into? inc upgrades, tiers, etc E = Economical, peons P = Production, how fast can you produce units? L = Logistical, how fast can you get units to the right spot? Can you?
At time of cutting a scv to 12/14 rax, Terran is: ~!GT =LT ~+TS !ES ~!PS =LS
As soon as the correct # of marines are out and at opponents nat/main, if Terran wants to do damage without allining, post battle, the game should come to this equilibrium for Terran: !GT =LT ~!TS +ES =PS =LS
So to force lings instead of drones, Terran is aiming for a stronger economy while giving up tech and army. (This is after the conclusion of the initial bit of pressure where Terran is weaker in army and is unable to move out from his base safely, but can hold with bunkers/scv walls. Normally, we see an expo then gas at this timing.)
In scenario 2, if Terran is aiming for a game-ender with 12/14, then immediately post sending the requisite # of marines, Terran aims for: ++GT +LT !TS !!ES =PS !LS
This is the "pull most scvs" allin push. In this situation, Terran gives up on eco, gives up most tech, has no way to equalize logistics and maintains his production equality to try to end the Zerg immediately with a +LT/++GT.
While this is all very obvious, it's important that we separate these two very different approaches to using 12/14. Also, it's very intentionally ignorant to state that Terran gives up "nothing" to 12/14. Every move in RTS has various costs attached to it, whether they are immediate, whether they are outside the game engine, or even into the realm of the what if "opportunity cost" game.
On December 07 2010 03:48 IdrA wrote:... the whole point is that it is badly designed, in this regard at least. really in general, warpin and mules make allins too strong. just about every single zerg has opened hatch first. me and ret who spent a week exclusively preparing for zvt's came to the conclusion that you have to open hatch first. it makes sense logically. what more do you want?
If anything, I would argue that the game is very well designed now. If we are playing a hypothetical game of Rock/Paper/Scissors, where you can attach diodes and readers into your opponents brain to try to get an idea what type of hand formation your opponent plans on using, you're essentially asking that "Paper" is too thin and needs to be thicker so that it can beat both Rock AND Scissors.
To limit the game in such a sense so that there is only one real playstyle to effectively play would limit the diversity of the game. If you really want to play a game where there are a minimum of divergent playstyles and where the winner is decided solely on mechanics, I recommend a typing test where the text to be used is decided on beforehand. Enjoy.
Obviously we don't want to take the analogy too far, as SC2 is not as simple as R > S > P > R. But, we want to make sure that the situation is that if Player A chooses R and Player B chooses S, Player A has a much easier time winning.
Side note, this is also why I am VERY unhappy when Blizzard stated that it was their intention that Zerg be overwhelmingly better to macro with. I rue everyday the fact that I chose Terran in SC:BW, but I'm too loyal to my race to race change^^
On December 07 2010 03:33 IdrA wrote: dont be stupid, the 'best macro opening' is the only chance at beating the build because terran barely has to sacrifice anything to do it. means if you do anything but hatch expand it doesnt matter if you live, you'll never catch up in econ.
I disagree, but you're a far better Zerg player than I am. Personally, I have a much easier time beating 12/14 ZvT with 14g/14p, but I'm only playing mid-"high" Diamonds.
Edit: Actually, I would like to rephrase. I still disagree that you can't catch up in econ, because that's ridiculous. But... I think the way you phrased it is very telling of a very robotic style of thinking. Why would you only care about catching up economically? If you're non-hatch first, your goal isn't to be ahead in eco... it's to be ahead in either army or tech. Maximize your strength rather than focus on your weakness...
This is like when in a mirror, your opponent makes an expo and then you make an expo. This is completely opposite the way I approach the situation. If my opponent makes an expo, I either attack right before it finishes or I wait for one round of units from my two extra production buildings then I attack after my units finish.
If you match your opponent's expand with an expand, you are guaranteeing that you are behind 5-X seconds depending on how fast your mirrored his build. You have no advantage, only a slight disadvantage. Makes no sense to resign yourself to a guaranteed disadvantage unless your opponent is so bad that he can't abuse it.
On December 07 2010 03:31 Lonyo wrote: Also, like others have said, don't blame Rain for trying to win. One problem here is one which doesn't even need Blizzard intervention. It's called custom maps. Instead of using maps with short rush distances where early pressure/all-ins are easier due to short distances, or where there are choke 'issues' etc, make maps which don't necessarily have these features.
This, a thousand times over. If only Blizzard would balance for bigger, macro maps rather than this conglomeration of hey, I'm in your face before you can finish a spine crawler maps even though you scouted me moving out. But I guess we'll be resigned to the fact that SC2 != SC:BW.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
Nothing. As a macro player, I deliberately stop myself from rax-FE every game, or else some wonderful Zerg is going to bling/sling bust me to get a free win. If you don't force the opponent to consider other possibilities you will have to rely on your other attributes (like mechanics) to carry your inflexibility.
An easy example is that Tom Brady is a fantastic QB. But when the Patriot offense devolved into pure West Coast with no runs, opponent defensive lines stopped maintaining proper penetration lanes and instead just rushed the QB with everything they had. They didn't have to respect the run so they only played to stop the pass.
If the Patriots were playing some college football team, however, their mechanics would be so far ahead of this college team that it wouldn't matter that they're passing every down. But when they have to play someone at or near their level, then predictability becomes exploitable.
But then we come into a favorite idea of Gary Kasparov. A weakness is only truly a weakness if it can be exploitable. Introducing weaknesses into your position only truly matters if your opponent takes advantage of them.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
Because when people say "Play to win", they mean "Do anything you can to within the rules". It means to ignore notions of what people may think is "cheap" or "boring". The game does not recognize cheapness or excitement, it recognizes winners and losers. All those are clearly agaisnt the rules, so "play to win" does not apply.
I think the series was obviously pretty crappy entertainment. However, I don't blame that on Rain, I blame that on Blizzard maps (and maybe balance). His job is to play to win with what he's presented.
A separate issue is his post-match demeanor, both with Artosis in the interview and on playxp. I don't care about him saying he didn't have time to practice and then people saying he was posting on playxp or whatever, don't give a fuck about that. How and when he practices is his own and TSL's business. I do find it a little telling that he's apologizing for the way he played, which tells me that he too does not think very highly of the strategy. I think it sucks that we're in a position where both players and fans hate what they're seeing and doing in games, time to step up Blizzard.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Clearly the game is broken because zergs can't safely manage to go for their most economic opening every game.
Also, like others have said, don't blame Rain for trying to win. One problem here is one which doesn't even need Blizzard intervention. It's called custom maps. Instead of using maps with short rush distances where early pressure/all-ins are easier due to short distances, or where there are choke 'issues' etc, make maps which don't necessarily have these features.
dont be stupid, the 'best macro opening' is the only chance at beating the build because terran barely has to sacrifice anything to do it. means if you do anything but hatch expand it doesnt matter if you live, you'll never catch up in econ.
Well doesnt this sound like you are playing a pretty badly designed game. Where one build is the only chance you have to beat another build.
I respect you as a player man, but there is never only 1 way to handle something. Why we gotta be so negative.
... the whole point is that it is badly designed, in this regard at least. really in general, warpin and mules make allins too strong. just about every single zerg has opened hatch first. me and ret who spent a week exclusively preparing for zvt's came to the conclusion that you have to open hatch first. it makes sense logically. what more do you want?
Aren't you the same guy that said you can't lose to bio and toss will never beat you now? This doesn't sound like someone interested in balance, but rather, someone who wants the game balanced around their playstyle. You think because you and ret played ZvT for a week straight and determined you had to hatch first makes it true? How are you an authority on balance... at all. You are a good zerg player, absolutely nothing more. Zerg should be able to open with its strongest macro game? Okay, then why can't terran open with 15 CC safely against a zerg with a fast pool all-in? Should only zerg be able to play greedy?
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
You couldnt be more wrong than here, you don't play to please the spectators (unless you are called HuK), you play to win or you are not a pro-gamer. I don't want to see a player who doesnt want to win.
And the whole argument on cheating is just ridiculous, its not in the game rules.
If "all-ins" will win you GSL, you're going to do it. Just like if pushing for 3-4 yards / down each time will win you a superbowl because your passing game isn't up to it, you'll do it even if its boring as fucking hell to watch.
Raging at players for not winning in an entertaining way is dumb. If it can be defended properly, blame the other player for not defending (let alone 3 times in a series), if it can't be defended, fix the game.
Crazy idea here: what if someone tried building 2 spinecrawlers to defend the all in?
On December 07 2010 06:20 mprs wrote: this is the dumbest thing ever. The man found a strategy that wins. Nestea held off the initial push, and had time to put down a second spinecrawler, but decided to drone.
I like how he gets crucified but Foxer becomes a hero for his 1 dimensional play.
Foxer was admired for his skill. You know, the best marine micro ever seen? Unreal splits? Great positioning? Why are you making comparisons that don't make any sense?
Rain showed no skill at all, and won by abusing ugly all-ins.
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
How does that make any sense at all? That's like saying you can't stop a roach rush unless you 1rax reaper FE...
Thats because you probably don't quite understand how zerg works.
How and Where will you plant that sunken ? This is a good point where hatch first is clearly the winner. The hatchery at the natural will generate creep sufficiently enough for the spinecrawler to grow in the natural rather than having none at all. How will you transfer your queen ? Non arguement, the natural hatchery doesnt magically link the nat's creep with the main's creep. The queen still needs to traverse off-road half of the way although it reaches the natural hatchery 1-2 seconds faster if there is creep there. How will you get creep speed bonus for a slightly easier chase with lings. This is a point of debate. The creep will obviously give you a speed bonus to your slow lings, but I would argue that pool first gets your speedling upgrade out faster. How will you stop bunker wall in. By not being lazy on scouting. Where will you get your economy from when T has mules and non stop scv production ? by making up for it in the midgame. Zerg is known for getting a third earlier than terran because mutalisks can keep the terran in their base. Banelings with speed can absolutely destroy MM balls unless the terran micro's like a god. It doesnt matter if the terran gets his economy up quicker if all he is making is easily countered units that happen to die hard versus a Tier 1 AoE unit that gets a speed bonus on creep and from an upgrade. Where will you get your production from ? Hatchery first gets one extra larva when it completes. Pool first gets your queen out earlier which gives you 4 larva after (23 energyregeneration units, do not know the exact time in seconds.). Early pool gets more larva out quicker earlier in the game, while hatch first gets more larva out slightly later when you have two queens at each base. It depends entirely on what kind of push and at what timing it hits to decide which build is the optimal solution to the threat ahead.
Probably some other things that i am missing.
The only advantages I see with hatching first is getting ahead in economy easier and the ability to put down a spinecrawler at that expansion sooner. In all the other circumstances I feel like Pool first and hatch first are about the same. Obviously progamers attempt at going hatch first most of the time because they train to eek out every little advantage they can get ( see splitting workers ).
I want to restate my point that I'm not saying hatching first ISN'T viable, I'm saying that pool first isn't as unviable as people make it out to be.
Nestea was way to stubborn with his build orders. He gave away the Steppes game by going hatch-first.
Pool-first with queen has equal larva production to hatch-first. Defending with drones nullifies any economic advantage that hatch-first would provide. I've reviewed the ZvT 2-barracks games, and none of the zergs had even 16 drones after defending a hatch-first opening with drones. I don't think hatch-first is worth it if the Zerg can't even saturate a single base during or after the terran push.
For example, in IdrA vs MVP on Metalopolis, he took 6-10 drones off mining for 1.5 minutes, losing 4 of them. After he stopped the pressure, he had 12 drones left. But he did get unlucky by spawning in close-positions. More thorough analysis on that game:
Same thing happened to Nestea in the game he lost to MakaPrime. Not even 16 drones after fighting off the push.
Every drone a Zerg takes off mining to defend in a hatch-first build could be 2 lings in a pool-first build. Instead of using 8 drones to defend while the Zerg waits for lings to pop, he could have 8 lings defending, and 4 drones mining. This just makes sense to me.
I biggest advantage I can see to hatch-first is that you get creep earlier at your natural, allowing for an earlier spine crawler there. Having earlier creep is also helpful on it's own, but from a production/income standpoint, I think it's worse than a pool-first build when the opponent goes 2 racks.
I think a lot of people are missing the point (including the reacting Koreans). Of course Rain should have used the all-ins...he is playing for $$. The real problem is the fact that all-in is currently the best strategy on high levels and this tournament proves that.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
You play to win within the rules obviously, thats not much of an argument you have there. I hate cheesing as much as the next guy but If I had a shot at winning 85K you'd better bet I'd bring the Provolone. As others have said, as long as he's not breaking any rules I don't see how you can blame him for trying to win if theres an issue it's with the game itself.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
Rain is within the realm of the game. He doesn't have telepathy or outside interference. He's relying solely on his decision making and his own two hands.
Terrible argument to bring in "bringing match fixing" and "paying people off" into the discussion when those are things outside the game e.g. politics.
Maphacking is its own thing, because the other player doesn't have access to that either. You act like picking Terran is hacking/cheating with a statement like that. Both players are still running Starcraft 2 nothing else.
Playing to win is just that. Theres rules involved of course, just like any sport. People are just retarded thinking 2rax all-ins break the rules of the game.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
Play to win =/= Cheat to win. Get your fact straight.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
You play to win within the rules obviously, thats not much of an argument you have there. I hate cheesing as much as the next guy but If I had a shot at winning 85K you'd better bet I'd bring the Provolone. As others have said, as long as he's not breaking any rules I don't see how you can blame him for trying to win if theres an issue it's with the game itself.
I agree with that.
Balance aside, I really think that everyone is pissed because wanted better games to watch not because TSL_Rain won doing that specific strategy.
On December 07 2010 05:43 furymonkey wrote: Since all the zerg are out, I guess this not longer apply. But what if your favourite star Jinro has a shot to take the first place, if he goes all in at the final. Would you support him so? Will it change your mindset about Jinro? I want to hear this from the Jinro's fan, and mind you this could be the first time that a foreigner take such a prestige reward at Korea.
I would still cheer for Jinro if he cheesed in a final. I'd cheer for the marines and the scv's as well. It's a dirty way to win but when you are competing for 100 million won you pick the strongest build you can do well and go for it. You don't worry if your opponents fans are gonna go emo over your build if you defeat them.
Cant blame Rain, but without question those were bullshit games to watch. Ridiculously boring and even develops a bad sentiment towards terran players and makes the terran race extremely unapealing, ofcousre thats not blizzard wants. I'm not really sure how they can address this issue though, maybe decrease marine DPS? maybe they take longer to build? maybe spine builds faster? I dont know..
The fans may have pointed the gun at his head but he pulled the trigger himself by apologizing! Did he cheat? no! Did he hack, exploit or did anything fishy at all? no!! then why on earth does he feel the need to apologize? What a sizzy. Stand by your actions and reply to all the whiners with a fat grin on your face: "fuck you all, I won and am in the semi finals".
I agree that all-in strats aint fun to watch. I wish he would have played differently but that is not up to me or anyone else. Rain did what he thought was the best way to beat Nestea.
Btw I disagree with all the terrans whining about not being able to win against a zerg in a macro game. Just because the korean terrans choose early all-in builds EVERY TIME doesnt mean you HAVE to go all-in and cant expand.
The phrase "terrans cant win in a macro game against zerg" is the worst bs ever! L2P
I really don't understand why people complain about this, Nestea knew what he was doing 14 hatching, which is a very risky and greedy build. Rain was also known for his good all in builds, so I don't see why people are complaining, because Nestea should have been prepared.
Sorry but i dont see a reason for this apologize.... Nestea played EVERY game 14 hatch. Nestea was just punished for his greedy openings. Z got ways to play safely and economical.... Rain did just good for punishing nestea for being so greedy.
I don't understand how people can get mad at a player for using a winning strategy and I don't think that he should have to apologize.
In any sport of competition, you can and should do anything within the rules to win. Nobody gets mad at a football team for faking a punt or a baseball team winning on a suicide squeeze.
what a bunch of crybabies, you can do whatever the fuck you want in a game to try to win it and u shudn't be blamed for it.... goal is to win, nothing else
TSL_Rain had personal issues, he even stated that RIGHT after he won in his interview with Artosis. If you are all so selfish to think that he should lose for your entertainment, then maybe you should go watch wrestling since you already know the outcome.
Honestly, I hope TSL_Rain wins the GSL now. He has me as a fan, and he shouldn't have to apologize to anyone for his solid play. Maybe he won because he all-ined, but he still won.
And again, to Rain's credit, he even said he had not intended on using all-in style builds, but had no other choices as he had so little time to prepare due to PERSONAL reasons, so leave him alone already.
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
How does that make any sense at all? That's like saying you can't stop a roach rush unless you 1rax reaper FE...
Thats because you probably don't quite understand how zerg works.
How and Where will you plant that sunken ? This is a good point where hatch first is clearly the winner. The hatchery at the natural will generate creep sufficiently enough for the spinecrawler to grow in the natural rather than having none at all. How will you transfer your queen ? Non arguement, the natural hatchery doesnt magically link the nat's creep with the main's creep. The queen still needs to traverse off-road half of the way although it reaches the natural hatchery 1-2 seconds faster if there is creep there. How will you get creep speed bonus for a slightly easier chase with lings. This is a point of debate. The creep will obviously give you a speed bonus to your slow lings, but I would argue that pool first gets your speedling upgrade out faster. How will you stop bunker wall in. By not being lazy on scouting. Where will you get your economy from when T has mules and non stop scv production ? by making up for it in the midgame. Zerg is known for getting a third earlier than terran because mutalisks can keep the terran in their base. Banelings with speed can absolutely destroy MM balls unless the terran micro's like a god. It doesnt matter if the terran gets his economy up quicker if all he is making is easily countered units that happen to die hard versus a Tier 1 AoE unit that gets a speed bonus on creep and from an upgrade. Where will you get your production from ? Hatchery first gets one extra larva when it completes. Pool first gets your queen out earlier which gives you 4 larva after (23 energyregeneration units, do not know the exact time in seconds.). Early pool gets more larva out quicker earlier in the game, while hatch first gets more larva out slightly later when you have two queens at each base. It depends entirely on what kind of push and at what timing it hits to decide which build is the optimal solution to the threat ahead.
Probably some other things that i am missing.
The only advantages I see with hatching first is getting ahead in economy easier and the ability to put down a spinecrawler at that expansion sooner. In all the other circumstances I feel like Pool first and hatch first are about the same. Obviously progamers attempt at going hatch first most of the time because they train to eek out every little advantage they can get ( see splitting workers ).
I want to restate my point that I'm not saying hatching first ISN'T viable, I'm saying that pool first isn't as unviable as people make it out to be.
I've gotta say, even though I am a lowly low diamond protoss, whenever I see a zerg do 14 hatch I go for 2 gate immediately and pressure with zealots, I've yet to lose a game when I 2 gate, and I've yet to win a game when I just let zerg sit on their expansion.
I don't understand such guys who say "terran has no late game", "if cheese is better then players should do it, and its fine", "prize money is so big, players need to do everything they can". Have you guys seen how people vote for these games as recommended to watch? 90% say NO, don't watch, its bullshit. You're in 10% who likes smart-cheese-allins for the big prize money. Now my point is: if 90% of viewers don't like these games is there any point of broadcasting. People won't watch something they don't like. Which means less sponsors -> no future for SC2. Please open your mind. Clearly the balance team of Blizzard are not doing good job.
On December 07 2010 06:37 Fayth wrote: what a bunch of crybabies, you can do whatever the fuck you want in a game to try to win it and u shudn't be blamed for it.... goal is to win, nothing else
Ah... on some simple minds the world is really black and white. But in reality it's not. It's shades of grey. Let me explain. Where does the money from the prizes come from? It's from the spectators. No spectators, no sponsors. No sponsors, no money. And spectators watch a game because they enjoy watching it, not because they want X to win (except some cases) whatever boring / lucky way it takes. So in a way, whoever goes there cheesing as hard as hell, just to win, is being somewhat egoistical, and not giving much in return to the people that pay from their pockets to see good games. Still, the money is a huge temptation, and probably understandable in many cases, so ultimately the fault goes to the balance of the game, but that's not to say the players are being 100% correct with the public either by cheesing just to win.
TSL Rain didn't win because he cheated, or because he hacked maps or anything. He won, because he OUTPLAYED NESTEA.
It's THAT simple.
Really, even if I was Korean and playing in the GSL ro8, I would not give a crap about 'honour' and honourable play and not being cheesy and any of that.
It's 87K. You win, whatever it takes.
TSL Rain is an insane player who knew Nestea's style, and played accordingly. That's what players are SUPPOSED to do. Sure, you can try to be all entertaining by letting the game go on for 30 minutes...
... and then in 30 minutes, when you're out and you don't win anything else and you dont even make the next GSL, who's going to remember you. Hm.
... p.s. it seems to me that most of the complaints about the game not being 'entertaining' are coming from zerg players. WONDER WHY.
Worst night of gsl yet imo, boring, cheesy all-ins very lame. The winners should be ashamed of themselves. This has solidified my thought of NEVER buying a GomTv ticket, if I had paid to watch that I would probably be raging.
If I wanted to watch stupid cheeses win or lose I would just play on North America ladder.
Until players start shutting down the all-ins with safe play instead of being so greedy with their macro I don't see why someone who fails to adapt deserves to win more than the person who actually won.
"Oh, but, but, it needs to be entertaining, otherwise we won't watch and there won't be a future for SC2, so obviously the game is not balanced blah blah blah"
Do you wonder WHY Rain's all in's worked?
Because Nestea didn't adapt.. at. all. So don't blame balance, when Nestea was obviously the worse player that series... the one who didn't adapt playstyle at all (for pride, or whatever reasons, he thought he could get away with 14 hatch all the time).
On December 07 2010 06:46 andrewwiggin wrote: Wow.
People just LOVE to overreact huh.
TSL Rain didn't win because he cheated, or because he hacked maps or anything. He won, because he OUTPLAYED NESTEA.
It's THAT simple.
Really, even if I was Korean and playing in the GSL ro8, I would not give a crap about 'honour' and honourable play and not being cheesy and any of that.
It's 87K. You win, whatever it takes.
TSL Rain is an insane player who knew Nestea's style, and played accordingly. That's what players are SUPPOSED to do. Sure, you can try to be all entertaining by letting the game go on for 30 minutes...
... and then in 30 minutes, when you're out and you don't win anything else and you dont even make the next GSL, who's going to remember you. Hm.
... p.s. it seems to me that most of the complaints about the game not being 'entertaining' are coming from zerg players. WONDER WHY.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
You play to win within the rules obviously, thats not much of an argument you have there. I hate cheesing as much as the next guy but If I had a shot at winning 85K you'd better bet I'd bring the Provolone. As others have said, as long as he's not breaking any rules I don't see how you can blame him for trying to win if theres an issue it's with the game itself.
I am of the person who loves to say "haters gonna hate" and PLAY TO WIN, BUT needless to say because the majority of terrans are winning through all ins, it causes a reduction in appeal for casual spectators in e sports and less respect for the integrity of the game as casual players see these 2 rax > 4 rax all in cheeses over and over again. I would never DREAM of recommending any of my friends to watch any of these cheese as a good PRODUCT of SC2.
TLDR Playing to win is fun, but every terran all in cheesing is stunting the growth of this game as an esport. Honestly, what casual spectator wants to see that EVERY GAME.
I'm really disappointed right now with SC2 in general due to how incredibly successful players can be with just 1 base all in trash. It isn't fun to use these builds in practice, and it isn't fun to watch them either yet they are just so effective and they win games which is the #1 most important factor in a competitive environment. It's hard to say if this is a failing of the players or just some fundamental design flaw ... I guess time will tell but right now I'm finding myself very disinterested in the games in general due to how short sighted most of the winning strats are. The players barely get a chance to even showcase their abilities before the games are over.
Even in Fruitdealer's games everything was decided by 1 base play in a ZvP.
On December 07 2010 06:46 andrewwiggin wrote: Wow.
People just LOVE to overreact huh.
TSL Rain didn't win because he cheated, or because he hacked maps or anything. He won, because he OUTPLAYED NESTEA.
It's THAT simple.
Really, even if I was Korean and playing in the GSL ro8, I would not give a crap about 'honour' and honourable play and not being cheesy and any of that.
It's 87K. You win, whatever it takes.
TSL Rain is an insane player who knew Nestea's style, and played accordingly. That's what players are SUPPOSED to do. Sure, you can try to be all entertaining by letting the game go on for 30 minutes...
... and then in 30 minutes, when you're out and you don't win anything else and you dont even make the next GSL, who's going to remember you. Hm.
... p.s. it seems to me that most of the complaints about the game not being 'entertaining' are coming from zerg players. WONDER WHY.
-____-
LOL you just said he outplayed NesTea.
Yes. lol It's simple logic. Rain > NesTea for that series, so Rain wins. Otherwise... NesTea wins.
On December 07 2010 06:51 Synk wrote: I'm really disappointed right now with SC2 in general due to how incredibly successful players can be with just 1 base all in trash. It isn't fun to use these builds in practice, and it isn't fun to watch them either yet they are just so effective and they win games which is the #1 most important factor in a competitive environment. It's hard to say if this is a failing of the players or just some fundamental design flaw ... I guess time will tell but right now I'm finding myself very disinterested in the games in general due to how short sighted most of the winning strats are. The players barely get a chance to even showcase their abilities before the games are over.
Even in Fruitdealer's games everything was decided by 1 base play in a ZvP.
... again.
Zerg players, stop blaming SC2 balance and the GAME... for the shortsighted play styles of PLAYERS.
Do you think Rain would have gone in with such incredibly strong all-ins... if he thought NesTea was doing some sort of early 1 base play? Or something other than 14 hatch?
On December 07 2010 06:44 bokeevboke wrote: I don't understand such guys who say "terran has no late game", "if cheese is better then players should do it, and its fine", "prize money is so big, players need to do everything they can". Have you guys seen how people vote for these games as recommended to watch? 90% say NO, don't watch, its bullshit. You're in 10% who likes smart-cheese-allins for the big prize money. Now my point is: if 90% of viewers don't like these games is there any point of broadcasting. People won't watch something they don't like. Which means less sponsors -> no future for SC2. Please open your mind. Clearly the balance team of Blizzard are not doing good job.
And again, then that's a BALANCE issue, not a player issue. It is not the job of the players to consider things outside of playing the game.
Also, you have to hand it to the fact that the maps are terrible for macro based play. Consider the map God's Garden from ICUP. You get two expansions without having to blow up destructible rocks and without having a gaping wide natural. Starcraft 1 has a lot of macro oriented maps since that's what makes for great games at OSL/MSL. In Starcraft 2 it's almost impossible to take a third base without taking a huge risk, especially in maps like Jungle Basin.
Has Blizzard ever announced why they won't make bigger maps like in BW? It's getting kind of annoying to see maps like Steppes all the time. Might as well throw Blood Bath into the OSL finals map pool in Broodwar.
Is it to compensate for mechanics being easier that they feel they need to speed everything up by making start positions closer and maps smaller than in BW? If 85% of the maps were bigger maps I don't think we would be having this specific balance discussion right now.
On December 07 2010 05:28 Gotmog wrote: The problem i see is that we just had a worse player winning. + The player who said that he didn't even have time to practice, so he just did this. + NesTea knew what was coming.
That is a clear balance problem in my eyes. If you are a better player that is constantly practicing vs the cheese build that you KNOW that is coming. You should not lose. Thats just it. Not discussion about it.
Whether late game ZvT is imbalanced towards zerg, or it's just that T refuse to practice macro games as much as Zerg , when they have so much safer and easier time in early game is another question. And That SHOULD be addressed after some nerfs to marine/scv all ins.
I am all FOR keeping cheese/rushes/all ins in the game, but it should not be so easy/effective to do even when scouted and prepared for.
P.S I don't know why are ppl still getting impressed with marine micro. (not counting micro vs banelings)
This is a ridiculous post for several reasons.
If the better player deserved to win all the time, why do we even have games??? Starcraft is a game where upsets happen ALL THE TIME. Bisu vs Savior. Bisu vs Shine (in the other way). Kwanro's entire life (lol jk... kinda). If you don't know these people, uh...
The point is a worse player can pull out a strategy and win. You think this build is NOT DEFENDABLE? Then why doesn't every single damn terran in the world do this build if you CAN'T lose? Haven't you considered the possibility that there are counters to this build? Firstly, if NesTea knew about it, he clearly failed in executing, or still did the blind risk of a 14hatch. Also, if he didn't know about it, well, that's just an issue of scouting and his risk-taking on no information.
There is no such thing as a guaranteed victory. Even if you know everything and you're better than the other player, your choices and your risks that you take, coupled with whether you actually executed perfectly, decide the entire outcome of the game.
On December 07 2010 06:44 bokeevboke wrote: Now my point is: if 90% of viewers don't like these games is there any point of broadcasting. People won't watch something they don't like. Which means less sponsors -> no future for SC2. Please open your mind. Clearly the balance team of Blizzard are not doing good job.
One-sided games with the same tactics that have not much to do with skill but game mechanics that allow them are just plain awful to watch. And I'm not talking about these SCV allins only. There are way too many situations where you can safely tell that one player already lost and there is nothing he can do about this and this will just drag for several minutes. I just want that the games would be more thrilling, with back and forth action all over the place and that players could overcome unfavorable situations with skill for epic comebacks.
I just want to enjoy watching pros playing amazing games. Is that too much to ask from e-sports title?
Well, you're taking a huge risk for doing all-ins. If it fails, you're pretty much in a hole.
So nerfing all-ins would make the game MORE boring in my opinion. Variety is good... And Nestea should have played more safely. It's hard to believe he doesn't pool first much and got this far in GSL.
Although, I do believe terran early-all-in> protoss/zerg all-ins because of the mule and terran defense.
On December 07 2010 06:51 Synk wrote: I'm really disappointed right now with SC2 in general due to how incredibly successful players can be with just 1 base all in trash. It isn't fun to use these builds in practice, and it isn't fun to watch them either yet they are just so effective and they win games which is the #1 most important factor in a competitive environment. It's hard to say if this is a failing of the players or just some fundamental design flaw ... I guess time will tell but right now I'm finding myself very disinterested in the games in general due to how short sighted most of the winning strats are. The players barely get a chance to even showcase their abilities before the games are over.
Even in Fruitdealer's games everything was decided by 1 base play in a ZvP.
... again.
Zerg players, stop blaming SC2 balance and the GAME... for the shortsighted play styles of PLAYERS.
Do you think Rain would have gone in with such incredibly strong all-ins... if he thought NesTea was doing some sort of early 1 base play? Or something other than 14 hatch?
Just THINK about that for a minute...
... itll come to you.
no, he'd go for a safe expansion because zerg has no good one-base plays or indeed anything other than 14 hatch. you have to listen to people like idra and ret when they speak. 14 hatch is needed to generate enough larva to stop the all-in. nestea did the correct build (almost--should have made more spines) but played the encounters improperly
On December 07 2010 06:46 andrewwiggin wrote: Wow.
People just LOVE to overreact huh.
TSL Rain didn't win because he cheated, or because he hacked maps or anything. He won, because he OUTPLAYED NESTEA.
It's THAT simple.
Really, even if I was Korean and playing in the GSL ro8, I would not give a crap about 'honour' and honourable play and not being cheesy and any of that.
It's 87K. You win, whatever it takes.
TSL Rain is an insane player who knew Nestea's style, and played accordingly. That's what players are SUPPOSED to do. Sure, you can try to be all entertaining by letting the game go on for 30 minutes...
... and then in 30 minutes, when you're out and you don't win anything else and you dont even make the next GSL, who's going to remember you. Hm.
... p.s. it seems to me that most of the complaints about the game not being 'entertaining' are coming from zerg players. WONDER WHY.
-____-
LOL you just said he outplayed NesTea.
Yes. lol It's simple logic. Rain > NesTea for that series, so Rain wins. Otherwise... NesTea wins.
Magic, ta da!
ok, he outplayed. Doesn't change the fact that games suck. Cheese/allin is different in SC2 and BW. In BW it had like 30% chance to win and fails miserably if scouted. In SC2 it WORKS EVEN IF ITS SCOUTED.
On December 07 2010 06:49 Aprikosen wrote: pool before hatch.
// end thread
signed. I mean you can blame Rain for playing all-ins. But you have to blame Nestea for doing such risky builds on maps, where it is simply impossible, if the terran scout it. And this doesn't depends on the matchup in ZvZ or PvZ you have no chance when you go hatch before pool on maps like SoW. In PvZ you will lose to proxy cannons and in ZvZ you lose against a bunch of Zerglings. At least HongUn has an easy Game in the Semi-Final and we will have at least one player in the finals who deserves it.
I think that Rain deserved every win he got. If Nestea's choice was to 14/15 hatch every game before pool and not be prepared for the marine/scv rush consequences, thats his own fault.
People learned last GSL that if you let a zerg get away with that opening, you will lose the game almost every time.
Rain simply used the strategy that he knew countered that opening. Plain and simple.
Take 4gate: I highly doubt any Protoss, who is playing 4gate in a ratio Rain did with his marines, will reach the Ro4 in GSL, because 4 gate is an Cheesy allin u can stop if u scout well enough. So naturally this strategy can be defeated by proper scouting and reacting, thus you will rarely see protoss getting top by just 4gating.
Marine-Allins: Even if u scout it ure really having a hard time. And even if u defend it in the first place. Most of the time the 2nd or 3rd attack are pretty effectiv, too.
The problem is not the player, why shouldnt u play the most effectiv strategy? The problem lays in the Balance of this rush. You may choose which points make it so hard and change them to get rid of this strategy getting abused. a.) It comes too fast b.) Marines are too effectiv c.) Mules make the drone dump less striking to your economy d.) Zerg's early units arent effectiv enough in small numbers, to deflect marine allins e.) THE FREAGIN MAPS ARE TOOO SMALL
These are just options, but its pretty obvious what my opinion is
On December 07 2010 07:02 traumatise wrote: I think that Rain deserved every win he got. If Nestea's choice was to 14/15 hatch every game before pool and not be prepared for the marine/scv rush consequences, thats his own fault.
People learned last GSL that if you let a zerg get away with that opening, you will lose the game almost every time.
Rain simply used the strategy that he knew countered that opening. Plain and simple.
What would your reply be if Tea did pool first, and lost anyway?
That he didn't micro good enough? That Rain is a better player?
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
You play to win within the rules obviously, thats not much of an argument you have there. I hate cheesing as much as the next guy but If I had a shot at winning 85K you'd better bet I'd bring the Provolone. As others have said, as long as he's not breaking any rules I don't see how you can blame him for trying to win if theres an issue it's with the game itself.
I am of the person who loves to say "haters gonna hate" and PLAY TO WIN, BUT needless to say because the majority of terrans are winning through all ins, it causes a reduction in appeal for casual spectators in e sports and less respect for the integrity of the game as casual players see these 2 rax > 4 rax all in cheeses over and over again. I would never DREAM of recommending any of my friends to watch any of these cheese as a good PRODUCT of SC2.
TLDR Playing to win is fun, but every terran all in cheesing is stunting the growth of this game as an esport. Honestly, what casual spectator wants to see that EVERY GAME.
I don't think you understand the point of "play to win" at all. It's not the job of the players to entertain. It's their job to win. "Play to win" is not about fun either, it's about winning. It just so happens by coincidence that winning is fun for most people, and entertaining a lot of the time.
You can still have your pylon hearts and dancing marines and cute plays, but those should never affect your chances of winning.
Whose job is it to entertain? The designers of the game and the tournament organizers. Creating balance so that Terran early game does not overpower Zerg's and Zerg's lategame does not overpower Terran's is Blizzard's job, not the player's. Tournament organizers can also try to get better maps by 3rd party designers, or re-institute the veto system. That's how you get entertaining games.
...Seriously, the number of times 14 hatch has been called greedy is just blowing my fucking mind. None of you have any idea what you're talking about. 14 hatch and then droning a bunch is greedy. Making a 14 hatch so you have enough larvae and creep to defend while also preparing for saturation if/when you hold is not greedy.
I know! He should go 1 base roach or a 1 base baneling bust! That'll throw off that terran!... Until you realize they're not 1400 diamond players who don't know how to react to obvious 1 base play.
Are delayed expansions an auto-loss? No, but it puts you far enough behind that it now requires straight up bad play by the terran to win. Do you really want to rely on your opponent being shitty to win games? No, so the zerg go 14 hatch and hope to guess the aggression properly and then micro well enough to survive.
I just can't believe the number of times these arguments are being brought up time and time again in every single thread where TvZ is brought up. It blows my mind that people can still be that misinformed about how zerg even works as a whole. Spend some time and learn what the hell you're talking about.
Seriously, what the hell is up with those Koreans? The sense of entitlement is amazing. It's like complaining about Marty-ball in football, which is an extremely conservative way to play, but it fucking wins games like crazy. A coach in football isn't going to air it out for the fans; he's going to air it out if his team is built to do that. The same goes in SC2. TSL_Rain shouldn't have to complain. He's playing to win and that's all that matters. If he feels that all-in cheese is the best way to do that, then he should do that.
On December 07 2010 05:28 SpectreSOF wrote: I seem to recall a time when pool before hatchery was viable. And this was way back when early reapers or hellions were good. Now that they're nerfed somehow pool first became unviable?
As much as I hate cheese I feel like most of the people in this thread missed the real point the Nestea vs Rain matchup showed; that 2 rax all-in > 14 hatch. As soon as Z realizes that there isn't a "2 hatcheries required" line in the spawning pool tab and stops being stubborn about their build order and being to come up with new BOs then I'm sure a perfectly acceptable solution will be found to end this cheesy nonsense.
You are DEAD wrong. And i hope ppl will start reading what Idra/Ret/Jinro are saying all the time. You CAN'T stop marine/scv all in without 14 hatch.
How does that make any sense at all? That's like saying you can't stop a roach rush unless you 1rax reaper FE...
Thats because you probably don't quite understand how zerg works.
How and Where will you plant that sunken ? This is a good point where hatch first is clearly the winner. The hatchery at the natural will generate creep sufficiently enough for the spinecrawler to grow in the natural rather than having none at all. How will you transfer your queen ? Non arguement, the natural hatchery doesnt magically link the nat's creep with the main's creep. The queen still needs to traverse off-road half of the way although it reaches the natural hatchery 1-2 seconds faster if there is creep there. How will you get creep speed bonus for a slightly easier chase with lings. This is a point of debate. The creep will obviously give you a speed bonus to your slow lings, but I would argue that pool first gets your speedling upgrade out faster. How will you stop bunker wall in. By not being lazy on scouting. Where will you get your economy from when T has mules and non stop scv production ? by making up for it in the midgame. Zerg is known for getting a third earlier than terran because mutalisks can keep the terran in their base. Banelings with speed can absolutely destroy MM balls unless the terran micro's like a god. It doesnt matter if the terran gets his economy up quicker if all he is making is easily countered units that happen to die hard versus a Tier 1 AoE unit that gets a speed bonus on creep and from an upgrade. Where will you get your production from ? Hatchery first gets one extra larva when it completes. Pool first gets your queen out earlier which gives you 4 larva after (23 energyregeneration units, do not know the exact time in seconds.). Early pool gets more larva out quicker earlier in the game, while hatch first gets more larva out slightly later when you have two queens at each base. It depends entirely on what kind of push and at what timing it hits to decide which build is the optimal solution to the threat ahead.
Probably some other things that i am missing.
The only advantages I see with hatching first is getting ahead in economy easier and the ability to put down a spinecrawler at that expansion sooner. In all the other circumstances I feel like Pool first and hatch first are about the same. Obviously progamers attempt at going hatch first most of the time because they train to eek out every little advantage they can get ( see splitting workers ).
I want to restate my point that I'm not saying hatching first ISN'T viable, I'm saying that pool first isn't as unviable as people make it out to be.
I've gotta say, even though I am a lowly low diamond protoss, whenever I see a zerg do 14 hatch I go for 2 gate immediately and pressure with zealots, I've yet to lose a game when I 2 gate, and I've yet to win a game when I just let zerg sit on their expansion.
Not saying I disagree with you, but ZvP is a completely different match up from ZvT.
You have a more severe risk when you go hatch first in ZvP. Due to cannon rushes, early zealot agression, later agression allowing protoss to set up defences while he is going forge nexus.
There are more ways to immediately die if the protoss decides to put up severe early pressure. That is why I pretty much always go pool -> hatch in ZvP unless I'm feeling lucky that he goes gate-core. If I go hatch first and the protoss goes nexus first, he will be AHEAD in macro because of chronoboost unless I decide to go all drones in which case I will lose to 3 zealots attacking my queen.
I literally do not understand. How can people think they're better than pros? What makes them think to themselves, "hey, when top-tier pros said they've done testing, i think they're wrong" and when they watch games, they decide that they have a deeper understanding of the game than literally some of the best players in the world.
So people who are saying pool before hatch: Ret and Idra are therefore lacking in game understanding compared to you? Despite them testing extensively? NesTea always going 14 hatch is obviously him being stubborn instead of him having a better understanding of the matchup? Because that's what you're saying. And that just seems ludicrous to me. No wonder the pros almost never post, and all of them avoid the strat forum like the plague.
More relevant to the topic: pros play to win. I hated watching the series, but Rain did what he had to, and NT did what he had to. Any problem with Rain 2-raxing his way past a "better" player is Blizzard's fault for balancing, NT's fault for not playing perfectly. If 2-raxing is the best strat, who could blame Rain for doing it? It's his job, and a shitload of money is on the line.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
You play to win within the rules obviously, thats not much of an argument you have there. I hate cheesing as much as the next guy but If I had a shot at winning 85K you'd better bet I'd bring the Provolone. As others have said, as long as he's not breaking any rules I don't see how you can blame him for trying to win if theres an issue it's with the game itself.
I am of the person who loves to say "haters gonna hate" and PLAY TO WIN, BUT needless to say because the majority of terrans are winning through all ins, it causes a reduction in appeal for casual spectators in e sports and less respect for the integrity of the game as casual players see these 2 rax > 4 rax all in cheeses over and over again. I would never DREAM of recommending any of my friends to watch any of these cheese as a good PRODUCT of SC2.
TLDR Playing to win is fun, but every terran all in cheesing is stunting the growth of this game as an esport. Honestly, what casual spectator wants to see that EVERY GAME.
I think the worst part isn't the fact that 2 rax is strong against 14 hatch, but the fact that no matter how many times zerg lose to 2 rax, they refuse to do ANYTHING except 14 hatch. Seriously, for the fans, just try something else. At least on steppes of war. How bout an 11 pool, 20 hatch or a 6 pool. What about like 7 roach rush or 5 roach rush or 1 base muta or anything. Watching Nestea was driving me insane because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Even try something counter intuitive just to throw off the opponent. It's like, if some pitcher was like "Ok, my curveball is my best pitch" and the guy hits a home run, and the next time your like, "ok, well he hit that one out, but it's still my best pitch" and he throws the curve again and it's another home run, and then he keeps doing it. It doesn't matter if some other strategy is inferior economically or even defensively to 14 hatch, if it's not working, stop using it in games until you have time to practice against it specifically. Throwing your opponent off and doing something unexpected is a way to increase your odds of winning. This is how some american protoss win like Huk. One game he goes 1 gate expand, next game he cannon rushes you, next game forge FE, next game 1 base collosus, next game blink stalker rush, next game 3 gate expand. What if nestea went 11 pool on steppes, takes his first 6 lings and goes to the middle of the map. Suddnely when he thinks he should put down his 18 hatch, he sees and all in, so what does he do. Build 2 spine crawlers and use the lings to distract for 15 seconds while the spines get built, when the spines are almost built, run back to the base and defend and then win the game. 14 hatch might be superior in every way to 11 pool, but the fact that your opponent is not expecting it can win you games.
In a famous match against the computer, kasparov went b4. FREAKING b4. It's an awful move, but the computer had no information to make decisions early in the game and it ended up helping him.
If stopping 2 rax is impossible, then try something else. When all the different options have been exhausted, then it is fair to conclude that something is wrong, until then, do something different. Anything. Props to fruitdealer btw who was ballsy enough to try to break the forge FE with lings instead of doing the predictable nydus worm. If he had 1 more queen or a spore crawler, i think he could have won that game, but he made it interesting to watch. I'm sure next time he will be prepared against it and have some awesome strategy.
Its common knowledge that Zerg was significantly underpowered before the Roach buff. I think this has shown that Zerg is still underpowered even after the Roach buff. Either that, or Terran is just overpowered, or the maps are poorly made. There are a few possibilities, but I don't think anyone can say that Rain actually plays better than Nestea.
The hatch first build is just too greedy unless it's a map with a longer rush distance, Nestea kept stubbornly doing it so I'm not that angry with the loss. There is a way to deal with the scv all-in and Nestea didn't do it even after losing 2 games to it. Very frustrating to watch though as those were just garbage games and I just don't understand why zergs keep going hatch first when literally have of them have been taken out by these garbage scv marine timing pushes.
I will say though that I'm somewhat unhappy with the players that are left, the exceptions being Jinro, MC, and MarineKing (though Marineking can be somewhat cheesy too). I just don't think that Rain, Hongun, or Choya has demonstrated play at the level that I'm accustomed to seeing at this point. The Hongun Fruitdealer series was basically Fruitdealer handing Hongun three wins with incorrect reactions to Hongun's builds (Artosis needs to take Fruitdealer off of his top zergs list, that was abysmal). Choya's last series was full of both players making numerous mistakes and reacting incorrectly to what they were seeing.
I'd actually expect the winner of MarineKing v MC to win the whole thing, with Jinro being the only other player who might be able to take either of them.
On December 06 2010 19:36 Liquid`Ret wrote: people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked
not to mention you have to blindly make ~20 lings in that case so if terran just stops after 5 mariens and puts down a CC you are economically fucked
nestea fucked up his drone/ling control pretty bad there but hatch first is the only choice really...hency why steppes is auto loss vs terran, im sure nestea expected to lose set 2
Hatch first isnt greedy, its our best option. Quoted Ret to hopefullly get the point across.
there is just so many buillsh*t flying around in this thread. Please TL, close this thread and feature an open discussion about it with Pros who KNOW what they're talking about!
On December 07 2010 06:51 Synk wrote: Even in Fruitdealer's games everything was decided by 1 base play in a ZvP.
Isn't FRUITDEALER the one that tried to 1-base against Hongun a few times? In that series? I know he tried to on LT.
He got cannon contained, 1 base play was basically his only real option to regain control of that game. His other 1 base play was to punish FE Protoss much like 2 rax is to punish FE zerg. I think only real difference between the two is that Zerg out right loses if his 1 base play fails and Terran have the potential to get back into the game. Think that's why people get so angry over Terran play and not over other races 1 base play.
Really just think T should have a bit more risk involved with these plays. Otherwise see no problem in them. If a 2 rax push fails and you commit scvs to it, you should lose simple as that. That I think isn't quite happening.
On December 07 2010 07:08 proxY_ wrote: The hatch first build is just too greedy unless it's a map with a longer rush distance, Nestea kept stubbornly doing it so I'm not that angry with the loss.
I think people should stop saying this. I would imagine that pros practice a lot with different builds and try defending these pushes a lot in practice. Saying they are just stubborning doing hatch first seems a bit naive. They obviously view hatch first as the best response to this pressure. Much like how Fruit never hatch first against HongUn.
$86,000 dollars on the line.. Who can blame him for doing that?
Every game could be possibly be worth thousands. We may be upset that that's how TSL_Rain chose to win, but I don't think there's a man in the world that could blame him for doing so. He depends on this for a living. I would do much, much worse for that amount of money.
If you ask me people should be angry at Nestea for not being able to defend a marine SCV all-in. He should have been expecting it since that other guy won his previous games like that.
It's simple, if you can't defend your 14/15 hatch, dont do it. If the argument is that no one can defend a 14/15 hatch from 2 rax.... then 14/15 hatch is no longer viable against terran, unless you accept the risk. How is this a balance discussion? You certainly arent going to lose just because you went pool first and delayed your hatch by a couple supply.
Nestea should have adjusted his play style if he wanted to win. Rain is obviously the better strategist, he chose the best strategy to counter Nestea. Whats the problem?
the only thing I find bad about this is that nearly every terran that doesn't already do it (50% roughly) will do it now on ladder. That + patch 1.2 = happy times for zerg, every mirror muta fest, every vT marine allin, every protoss game phoenix. bye bye variety.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
On December 07 2010 07:13 mads wrote: It's simple, if you can't defend your 14/15 hatch, dont do it. If the argument is that no one can defend a 14/15 hatch from 2 rax.... then 14/15 hatch is no longer viable against terran, unless you accept the risk. How is this a balance discussion? You certainly arent going to lose just because you went pool first and delayed your hatch by a couple supply.
Nestea should have adjusted his play style if he wanted to win. Rain is obviously the better strategist, he chose the best strategy to counter Nestea. Whats the problem?
Guess I just don't understand...
No, you don't understand. Read some posts on this thread, the very reason you 14 hatch is because you can't defend a pool first. You 14 hatch exactly to defend 2 rax (because of various factors : creep, production etc...).
I can't believe people expect players who are in a major tournament to use anything but the strongest strategies available to them.
If the marine pressure is unbeatable, then it should be the focus of attention. If the marine pressure is beatable, then why is everybody angry at Rain?
On December 07 2010 06:51 Synk wrote: Even in Fruitdealer's games everything was decided by 1 base play in a ZvP.
Isn't FRUITDEALER the one that tried to 1-base against Hongun a few times? In that series? I know he tried to on LT.
He got cannon contained, 1 base play was basically his only real option to regain control of that game. His other 1 base play was to punish FE Protoss much like 2 rax is to punish FE zerg. I think only real difference between the two is that Zerg out right loses if his 1 base play fails and Terran have the potential to get back into the game. Think that's why people get so angry over Terran play and not over other races 1 base play.
Really just think T should have a bit more risk involved with these plays. Otherwise see no problem in them. If a 2 rax push fails and you commit scvs to it, you should lose simple as that. That I think isn't quite happening.
On December 07 2010 07:08 proxY_ wrote: The hatch first build is just too greedy unless it's a map with a longer rush distance, Nestea kept stubbornly doing it so I'm not that angry with the loss.
I think people should stop saying this. I would imagine that pros practice a lot with different builds and try defending these pushes a lot in practice. Saying they are just stubborning doing hatch first seems a bit naive. They obviously view hatch first as the best response to this pressure. Much like how Fruit never hatch first against HongUn.
EDIT: Ret quote kinda confirmed my statement.
In what game did a Terran win with a fail marines scv all in at the start? All the TvZ I have watched if that first all in fail Terran usually lose unless the Zerg made a huge mistake.
It's simple, if you can't defend your 14/15 hatch, dont do it. If the argument is that no one can defend a 14/15 hatch from 2 rax.... then 14/15 hatch is no longer viable against terran, unless you accept the risk. How is this a balance discussion? You certainly arent going to lose just because you went pool first and delayed your hatch by a couple supply.
Nestea should have adjusted his play style if he wanted to win. Rain is obviously the better strategist, he chose the best strategy to counter Nestea. Whats the problem?
Guess I just don't understand...
Ret and Idra have already posted saying that pool first is not stable against 2 rax all ins due to a larva shortage before your first queen's inject comes out. Also given that these guys are literally doing 100's of games a week and everyone knows how popular marine all-ins are don't you think they are using the best build they have found in their practice? If there was some sure fire defense to marine all-in's I'm sure we would have seen it from one of the pro's by now.
I can also say from my own experience, because I have always gone pool first that 2 rax marines will beat you because he can deny your expo until nearly 30 supply with bunkers, once he gets control of your ramp and he will because your first inject comes too late, as do roaches and getting spinecrawlers at the top of your ramp takes until about 30 supply due to needing spread creep out to the ramp. You don't lose right away .. but not even being able to get down your ramp until 30 supply is nearly an un-winnable scenario every time.
I want to comment on the Terran macro game since there is a point noone really mentioned yet.
I have the feeling that if Terrans go into a macro game they are more or less forced to do so. Usually they try to push the Zerg and if they fail they realize: I can't attack again I have to do something else. So they expand. If a Terran push works out well the game is over or if it isn't they just produce more units and end it with the next push. If Zergs win a battle they expand and pump drones because they know that they aren't able to break the Terran defenses if they just attack. This tends to lead into games where the Terran is either winning by a strong early/mid-game push or loses in a macro game. There is only a small number of terran players who try to keep up with the Zerg macro for example Jinro or SjoW and they aren't doing that bad.
But this might be just another terribly biased Zerg player opinion idk.
On December 07 2010 07:02 traumatise wrote: I think that Rain deserved every win he got. If Nestea's choice was to 14/15 hatch every game before pool and not be prepared for the marine/scv rush consequences, thats his own fault.
People learned last GSL that if you let a zerg get away with that opening, you will lose the game almost every time.
Rain simply used the strategy that he knew countered that opening. Plain and simple.
What would your reply be if Tea did pool first, and lost anyway?
That he didn't micro good enough? That Rain is a better player?
Considering the fact that this.. didnt happen... and there is no game to look at, i cant really comment on it.
Ok, so I just LOOOVEEEEE how Zergs complain about this, even Idra/Ret complain, but they conveniently leave out Z>T in a long macro game.
We get it. Two rax seems hard. But maybe complain for a balanced game, not a game where Zerg will have early game + late game dominance lmao...
if this really is a "problem" then TvZ lategame is as much a problem as this is, but Zergs keep their mouths shut about that don't they? Every top Zerg seems content to defend defend defend into freewin, so now when Terrans are like "fuck you Zergs, till blizz fixes lategame we're just gonna do this shit over and over," Zergs whine again? lol...
On December 07 2010 07:25 avilo wrote: Ok, so I just LOOOVEEEEE how Zergs complain about this, even Idra/Ret complain, but they conveniently leave out Z>T in a long macro game.
We get it. Two rax seems hard. But maybe complain for a balanced game, not a game where Zerg will have early game + late game dominance lmao...
if this really is a "problem" then TvZ lategame is as much a problem as this is, but Zergs keep their mouths shut about that don't they? Every top Zerg seems content to defend defend defend into freewin, so now when Terrans are like "fuck you Zergs, till blizz fixes lategame we're just gonna do this shit over and over," Zergs whine again? lol...
well maybe lets fix problem at hand and then talk hypotheticals?
On December 07 2010 07:25 avilo wrote: if this really is a "problem" then TvZ lategame is as much a problem as this is, but Zergs keep their mouths shut about that don't they? Every top Zerg seems content to defend defend defend into freewin, so now when Terrans are like "fuck you Zergs, till blizz fixes lategame we're just gonna do this shit over and over," Zergs whine again? lol...
On December 07 2010 07:25 avilo wrote: Ok, so I just LOOOVEEEEE how Zergs complain about this, even Idra/Ret complain, but they conveniently leave out Z>T in a long macro game.
We get it. Two rax seems hard. But maybe complain for a balanced game, not a game where Zerg will have early game + late game dominance lmao...
if this really is a "problem" then TvZ lategame is as much a problem as this is, but Zergs keep their mouths shut about that don't they? Every top Zerg seems content to defend defend defend into freewin, so now when Terrans are like "fuck you Zergs, till blizz fixes lategame we're just gonna do this shit over and over," Zergs whine again? lol...
I never heard from progamers that Z>T in lategame. How can we know that if all games end before 12 min? Didn't Foxer, Jinro, Clide show some good macro games?
Also, you don't get the point of thread. People are talking about how games suck due to allin/cheese strategies, its bad for viewership. I don't see Zerg complaining about balance much here.
On December 07 2010 07:07 VikingKong wrote: I literally do not understand. How can people think they're better than pros? What makes them think to themselves, "hey, when top-tier pros said they've done testing, i think they're wrong" and when they watch games, they decide that they have a deeper understanding of the game than literally some of the best players in the world.
So people who are saying pool before hatch: Ret and Idra are therefore lacking in game understanding compared to you? Despite them testing extensively? NesTea always going 14 hatch is obviously him being stubborn instead of him having a better understanding of the matchup? Because that's what you're saying. And that just seems ludicrous to me. No wonder the pros almost never post, and all of them avoid the strat forum like the plague.
If people were only following what the pro's said instead of using their own experiences combined with the experience of pro's then inovation would grind to a halt. We are not saying that Ret and idrA lack in comparison to us. Infact, I enjoy their feedback of why they think hatch first is better. I enjoy ANY feedback from pro's.
I admire pro's and I watch them every day in the GSL. I watch commentaries and I follow trends. But I won't copy exactly whatever they tell me is the end-all-be-all build until I have sufficient experience to say that that build might be the end-all-be-all build after all.
People need to not cling on to every word of a pro and play the game themselves and figure out what they feel is best. On the flip side pro's need to come down to earth and discuss strategies with the noob folk.
Right now the strategy forum is full of less knowledgeable players who discuss what works best for them. Unfortunally that demographic also likes to troll and/or flame. Which turns pro's and really good players off, completely understandable. Gems like for example Plexa's PvZ guide are a rare occurance but when they do get posted people admire and almost worship such valuable input. How does a monkey know what the best way to eat a banana is if the wise ones who do know sit at their part of the cage surrounded by rocks and trees out of the vision of every other monkey. While the rest of the monkeys only see other monkeys throwing feces at eachother and jamming banana's upside down against their jaws until the juice splatters out into their mouths?
It's simple, if you can't defend your 14/15 hatch, dont do it. If the argument is that no one can defend a 14/15 hatch from 2 rax.... then 14/15 hatch is no longer viable against terran, unless you accept the risk. How is this a balance discussion? You certainly arent going to lose just because you went pool first and delayed your hatch by a couple supply.
Nestea should have adjusted his play style if he wanted to win. Rain is obviously the better strategist, he chose the best strategy to counter Nestea. Whats the problem?
Guess I just don't understand...
Ret and Idra have already posted saying that pool first is not stable against 2 rax all ins due to a larva shortage before your first queen's inject comes out. Also given that these guys are literally doing 100's of games a week and everyone knows how popular marine all-ins are don't you think they are using the best build they have found in their practice? If there was some sure fire defense to marine all-in's I'm sure we would have seen it from one of the pro's by now.
I can also say from my own experience, because I have always gone pool first that 2 rax marines will beat you because he can deny your expo until nearly 30 supply with bunkers, once he gets control of your ramp and he will because your first inject comes too late, as do roaches and getting spinecrawlers at the top of your ramp takes until about 30 supply due to needing spread creep out to the ramp. You don't lose right away .. but not even being able to get down your ramp until 30 supply is nearly an un-winnable scenario every time.
Idra and Ret aren't exactly models of humility. I'm not saying that they're wrong but I think they both want it all. They want to believe that the most economical(insert: greediest) build is also the best build to defend against something like this.
I'd be more inclined to believe it if it came from more humble players.
It's simple, if you can't defend your 14/15 hatch, dont do it. If the argument is that no one can defend a 14/15 hatch from 2 rax.... then 14/15 hatch is no longer viable against terran, unless you accept the risk. How is this a balance discussion? You certainly arent going to lose just because you went pool first and delayed your hatch by a couple supply.
Nestea should have adjusted his play style if he wanted to win. Rain is obviously the better strategist, he chose the best strategy to counter Nestea. Whats the problem?
Guess I just don't understand...
Ret and Idra have already posted saying that pool first is not stable against 2 rax all ins due to a larva shortage before your first queen's inject comes out. Also given that these guys are literally doing 100's of games a week and everyone knows how popular marine all-ins are don't you think they are using the best build they have found in their practice? If there was some sure fire defense to marine all-in's I'm sure we would have seen it from one of the pro's by now.
I can also say from my own experience, because I have always gone pool first that 2 rax marines will beat you because he can deny your expo until nearly 30 supply with bunkers, once he gets control of your ramp and he will because your first inject comes too late, as do roaches and getting spinecrawlers at the top of your ramp takes until about 30 supply due to needing spread creep out to the ramp. You don't lose right away .. but not even being able to get down your ramp until 30 supply is nearly an un-winnable scenario every time.
Then perhaps a solution becomes apparent. You say that you need to get creep to the ramp, that the Terran denies your expo, and that you need the larva from the Hatchery. The lack of these things give Terrans control over your ramp, etc.
Well, Hatcheries produce creep, yes? And there's no rule that says you can't build Hatcheries at your ramp, right? So rather than relying on putting the Hatch at the expo, put it at your ramp. It gets you creep at the ramp, it allows you to create a wall-in with Spine Crawlers and the Hatchery, one that you can open at will. It gives you control over your ramp, and it gives you the extra larva you need to push the Terran back.
So maybe just trying different things is the solution.
Tell me if this doesn't make sense: I don't blame him, but I do hold it against him.
I don't blame him for doing whatever it takes to win, but I'm definitely less impressed and less inclined to want him to take the GSL due to his methods.
Hey guys, I heard when terran got supply before rax, everyone said early game pressure is no longer viable, and zerg is more safe? Does this mean the supply b4 rax complaint will no longer be an issue?
I read some post, but maybe in situations like this, the zerg can do the same thing they with cannon rush like build hatch inside main and reinforce with spine crawlers. just a thought
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
Rain didnt do anything bad. In fact he did something good. He showed us what is the current state of game.
This strategy is undoubtedly boring to watch. If zerg wont find any better way to defend against it, Blizz should make some balance tweaks otherwise it will be the most boring match up.
And i would like to say that Jinro is doing great job and showing that Terran dont have to do this all the time. Terrans should just learn to expand and macro.
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
On December 07 2010 07:07 Disastorm wrote: Its common knowledge that Zerg was significantly underpowered before the Roach buff. I think this has shown that Zerg is still underpowered even after the Roach buff. Either that, or Terran is just overpowered, or the maps are poorly made. There are a few possibilities, but I don't think anyone can say that Rain actually plays better than Nestea.
Your post is as pathetic as your sig. Its balance crybabies who are ruining sc2, not all-ins.
On December 07 2010 07:25 avilo wrote: if this really is a "problem" then TvZ lategame is as much a problem as this is, but Zergs keep their mouths shut about that don't they? Every top Zerg seems content to defend defend defend into freewin, so now when Terrans are like "fuck you Zergs, till blizz fixes lategame we're just gonna do this shit over and over," Zergs whine again? lol...
I can't blame him for what he did. A 14/15 hatch is kind of an economic cheese like a 15 nexus was in BW. I mean, it may be tough for BW players to say so, but with queens the hatch first isn't as necessary. And if you do get it early, with two queen the advantage you get just snowballs. The Tarran is then forced to counter cheese by 2raxing or taking a quick expansion. The quick expansions haven't been explored too much and I'd like to see more, but I can see that most Tarrans are not just going to put up with the quick expo.
I mean, people are saying the late game is imbalanced against Tarran, but it only really ends up bad when the Zerg takes a 14 hatch, the Tarran doesn't early expand, and the Zerg just gets a bunch of drones early. Without the extra econ boost, the late game hasn't changed much from before the patch. Sure, roaches are better, but the mid/late game muta ling bling is still the same, add some ultras and whatnot. It's just that since the patch the 14 hatch is safer, and thus Zergs just have a TON more, and thus it's "imbalanced". A 14 hatch shouldn't be standard, something later like a 13 pool 16 hatch or the 11 pool 18 hatch puts you even in the late game, it's just a lot of Zergs like the free advantage late game.
On December 07 2010 07:20 Fission wrote: I can't believe people expect players who are in a major tournament to use anything but the strongest strategies available to them.
If the marine pressure is unbeatable, then it should be the focus of attention. If the marine pressure is beatable, then why is everybody angry at Rain?
Fans are clingy complaining dipshits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you will be for it. - yahtzee
I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
On December 07 2010 07:45 rackdude wrote: I can't blame him for what he did. A 14/15 hatch is kind of an economic cheese like a 15 nexus was in BW. I mean, it may be tough for BW players to say so, but with queens the hatch first isn't as necessary. And if you do get it early, with two queen the advantage you get just snowballs. The Tarran is then forced to counter cheese by 2raxing or taking a quick expansion. The quick expansions haven't been explored too much and I'd like to see more, but I can see that most Tarrans are not just going to put up with the quick expo.
I mean, people are saying the late game is imbalanced against Tarran, but it only really ends up bad when the Zerg takes a 14 hatch, the Tarran doesn't early expand, and the Zerg just gets a bunch of drones early. Without the extra econ boost, the late game hasn't changed much from before the patch. Sure, roaches are better, but the mid/late game muta ling bling is still the same, add some ultras and whatnot. It's just that since the patch the 14 hatch is safer, and thus Zergs just have a TON more, and thus it's "imbalanced". A 14 hatch shouldn't be standard, something later like a 13 pool 16 hatch or the 11 pool 18 hatch puts you even in the late game, it's just a lot of Zergs like the free advantage late game.
This is so entirely wrong it's actually pretty absurd.
1. NesTea goes 14 Hatch every time. Rain wins his 3 games in the Bo5 series by doing 2-Rax All-Ins.
2. 2-Rax was developed in order to straight-up counter 14 Hatch builds, or at least put pressure on them. Due to the prevalence of 2-Rax being fairly dominant against 14 Hatch, 14 Hatch is seen as being economical/greedy and actually deserves to be punished by 2-Rax aggression. People say Nestea was foolish to go 14 Hatch every time and not adapt his play at all when 2-Rax is so prominent and dominant against it.
3. However, players like Idra and Ret say that 14 Hatch is really the best build against 2-Rax due to the larvae production capabilities.
I'm sure a lot of people feel this though: As much they respect players like Idra and Ret and recognize their skill, they are more inclined to be convinced by games they can actually see instead of just "reasoning".
The main reason people aren't seeing how the argument of "14 hatch is actually safer/best against 2 Rax" is because people haven't seen many attempts to do otherwise in high-profile matches. People see Zergs doing the 14 Hatch opening nearly every game; people see Zergs LOSE with that 14 Hatch opening nearly every game. And the viewers don't see any attempt to change that even after seeing so many Zergs lose to 2 Rax with 14 Hatch when they believe there are alternative openings.
If people see more high-profile matches (NOT just replays from practice games, even if it is from Pro Players) where they can clearly see the reasoning behind the argument that there aren't any better alternatives against 2-Rax than 14 Hatch, people may be more inclined to believe that 14 hatch is the best opener. But until there are more games to compare 14 Hatch with, there are a lot MORE games to reference as examples of why 14 Hatching FAILS against 2-Rax, leading more people to think that 14-Hatch isn't the best opener.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
On December 07 2010 07:25 avilo wrote: if this really is a "problem" then TvZ lategame is as much a problem as this is, but Zergs keep their mouths shut about that don't they? Every top Zerg seems content to defend defend defend into freewin, so now when Terrans are like "fuck you Zergs, till blizz fixes lategame we're just gonna do this shit over and over," Zergs whine again? lol...
What is the early solution for Zerg fast expanding? Attack early and attack hard. The harder you can attack the better off you are, as long as you have the follow-up. The target is to put the zerg so far behind that you have a chance at macro game versus him.
I agree that the 2 first Rains wins were a bit cheesy/all-inny, but the last game was very legit gameplay. Early preassure into expansion. I knew IMNesTea was going to lose, because Terrans SCVs could mine in peace while IMNesTea had to use his for defense.
While it may have been "boring" to watch, going for an all-in is a viable way to win the game.
Yes the games were a bit disappointing and lacked diversity but imo NesTea owes his fans an apology also for not properly preparing to stop what is a very common and strong all-in.
He really didn't *need* to hatch first every game, especially after Rain showed he was willing and able to do the marine SCV all-in.
Also to all the Rain haters out there imagine you're up against a player who you just can't beat in the late game but who keeps using vulnerable economic openers. Add to this the fact that winning this series alone secures you an extra 5000 dollars and opportunity for 30 or even 80k. You can't knock the guy at all for doing whatever it takes to win (that is in the rules).
The real lesson we learn from the unfortunately crappy games is that Z can't always hatch first and survive early cheese (obviously).This doesn't require any rebalancing of ZvT even. Try going hatch first against 8 pool or proxy 2-gate. I don't know why so many top players insist on this. We saw July and FD go pool first each time and be very safe moving into the midgame. If NesTea sensed he is a superior macro player then he should have safely set up a macro game instead of being greedy.
Moral of the story: Not Rain's fault. A win is a win is a win. This kind of stuff will naturally happen less and less as Zs learn from NesTea's mistakes in this series
On December 07 2010 07:47 LancerStarcraft wrote: GSL Zergs should stop going hatch before pool when they know they are going to get 2-rax/4raxed all-ined.
this post shows you don't know anything about zerg.
I'll explain to why top zergs are hatch firsting still even though there is 2 rax all ins all the time. If you go pool first guess what the terran can do to you? He can push make you cancel your expo (if you didn't make one he'll be even happier) then bunker contain you at the bottom of the ramp.
Then the terran throws down his expo before the zerg can remake/start his if he goes pool first. So that means zerg is already incredibly behind as we all know terran getting his natural before a zerg is super bad for zerg.
Also if you go hatch first you get more larva which = more zerglings when the push comes so you can defend. Nestea defended poorly as he should have been able to defend against that like he did against fake boxer.
the main problem is that if both races dont touch each other the zerg will just completly roll the terran terran has to do damage in the early game where it's strong so that they are on even footing in the mid game, so yeah, its clearly a design issue with terran being too strong early game but then quickly falling apart zerg have their macro mechanic + able to pump many drones (not really an issue, though) toss have their death ball with critical mass of colossus sure terran has tanks but they are too bad after the nerf to be massed (ala bw tvp) doing all ins as terran is just the most safest thing to do - as ridiculous as that may sound
rofl at all these noobs. pool first is much better than 14 hatch. You have enough drones/lings to live enough to get speedlings. Out of 15 zvt games, 9 terrans did a marine push rush on me, i went pool first, and won all. I always go pool first and have never lost against a marine/scv all in or a marine push in general. The trick is to take out around 4 lings by the time he comes with 1 marine, and dont let the scvs block your ramp, which is really ez prevent. And if he does an scv/marine all in to your 1 base, do what fruitdealer did. Move all your drones to the far end, trap the marines from microing more to the back, and take out the marines with your drones and kill the scvs with your front lings. Watch Fruitdealer vs bitbitprime and ull c what i mean.
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
More nerfs are not the answer, you heard it from Artosis himself: "You know they were going to balance Terran in SCBW until July zerg started using the stacked-muta trick that basically balanced the MU"
The answer is to put your innovation caps on and make the impossible, possible.
On December 07 2010 07:51 koolaid1990 wrote: rofl at all these noobs. pool first is much better than 14 hatch. You have enough drones/lings to live enough to get speedlings. Out of 15 zvt games, 9 terrans did a marine push rush on me, i went pool first, and won all. I always go pool first and have never lost against a marine/scv all in or a marine push in general. The trick is to take out around 4 lings by the time he comes with 1 marine, and dont let the scvs block your ramp, which is really ez prevent. And if he does an scv/marine all in to your 1 base, do what fruitdealer did. Move all your drones to the far end, trap the marines from microing more to the back, and take out the marines with your drones and kill the scvs with your front lings. Watch Fruitdealer vs bitbitprime and ull c what i mean.
so you say you are more knowledgeable than idra then?
On December 07 2010 07:40 Tuczniak wrote: Rain didnt do anything bad. In fact he did something good. He showed us what is the current state of game.
This strategy is undoubtedly boring to watch. If zerg wont find any better way to defend against it, Blizz should make some balance tweaks otherwise it will be the most boring match up.
And i would like to say that Jinro is doing great job and showing that Terran dont have to do this all the time. Terrans should just learn to expand and macro.
I like this post.
It's not Rain's fault or Terran players fault... it's BLIZZARD's FAULT. Zerg mechanics of instant 200/200 army every time they die isn't Terran's fault. It's Blizzard's development team.
You can't blame Rain for taking the best chance to win... in the early game where Zerg doesn't have like a thousand expos. If Blizzard wants to entertain us... change the marine's damage output... lower SCVs health... make sunkens or whatever they're called in SC2 do more damage. Can't blame the player for how the game is currently played out.
i dont know, alot of money is on the line for these players and all that matters to get that money is to win. sadly players will always take the flak for sneaking in wins. but remember they are playing for their career and money to survive off of.
It's like Senna basically said "once you stop racing to win, you are no longer a racing driver". Do what you can to win. The player, Rain, is to blame for poor spectacles of games, but the fact is - this is his profession and his life where winning = success so until someone stops it, I'd say he should keep doing it. I'm just upset that the dude made me lose points in liquibet because i thought there was no way NesTea would lose to that.
Also, the all-in marine/scv rushes aren't impossible to stop, we saw FD do it easily on jungle basin so I'm gonna go ahead and say FD > NesTea.
I guess people should apologize for playing to win now. Unless they go non-standard, macro heavy builds then they are ruining it for us entitled spectators.
Everyone posting "lul dun 14 hatch, ez win" should seriously stop talking. Contributing low-diamond advice to a thread where the reasons behind 14 hatch have been explained to death isn't really helping.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
I don't think anyone can blame liquid`Ret for practicing so much against this strategy before his IMmvp match up. Too bad it required so much practice, if it wasn't quite as strong he could've practiced against other strategies.
Nestea didnt micro as well as he could have. Alot of points in the game where i believe he could have won. Coulda always dropped the spinecrawler and kept alot of drones out to keep him off it while it built and saved some queen energy for a transfusion if he kept scvs near. If he couldn't fend off the cheese, maybe hes just as undeserving as you all claim rain is to be.
Nestea vs Rain was legit. I mean, when it comes to broader balance concerns like Morrow's use of Reapers, I believe that most of us agreed that players should do whatever it takes to win, and leave the balancing to Blizzard.
You can't just make a 10-minute no-rush rule for SC2 - that's ridiculous. Knowing how to stop certain all-in attacks is a skill in itself.
Even in BW, the better players know to expect some sort of cheesy strat from the lesser players because they know that the less-skilled players can't hope to go head-to-head with them in a macro game. And we don't blame those less-skilled players for sticking with some sort of early game play. So I don't understand why everyone's so riled up with Rain's games in particular.
Heh, I figured when blizzard said at blizzcon that marines are overtuned in the early game that people would begin to start using them en masse. It's not really surprising.
As a 2500 Z (I stopped laddering 2 weeks ago) its really frustrating when people keep saying 'just go one base' or "learn to prepare for it" because in all honesty even if you see it coming, the terran can choose not to attack and just CC and expand behind a bunker. What do you do with the 24 lings you made now lol?
Btw I have been experimenting with my practice partners going 14gas/14pool and the problem with this is that they terran can actually do a slow bunker push as you lack the zerglings early to really defend against it. I"m talking about a bunker to the far side of your natural to deny a natural and then continuously pushing to your ramp with it while blocking off their own base.
Here's what I heard with small modifications. When I open CC first, a pool or gas first build beats me 85% of the time. Blizzard, please nerf zergling attacks.
Here's also what I heard with small modifications. If I let Terran take every gold expansion and don't punish them for it, I'm screwed in the lategame! Blizzard, nerf nerf nerf!
I know many SC2 players are new to TL.net... but geez, can't we focus on what we can do to give ourselves the best chance of winning rather than what we can bitch about to Blizzard until they give us the best chance of winning?
I mean... does Blizzard even pay you to help them balance? You really got that much time and compassion to help them do their jobs? (Which they're infinitely better than you at doing.)
i don't care if the game is balanced or not, but it is boring to watch. i don't care if blizzard wants to swing the nerf/buff stick or the players come up with a way to make it more intresting to watch, but something has to be done.
during GSL1, i went to work early and took a extra long lunch break, so i could watch as much as possible of the streams. during GSL2, i did the same at the start, but the longer it went on, the less i did it, at the end i only read the updates in the live report thread, maybe checked if people claimed a game was a good watch and watched the VOD, did not even watch the finals. GSL3? i check the results, see if one of the games was rated as a good watch.. if it is game1 of the series, i will watch it, if not.. meh, who cares.
the last tournament that i enjoyed watching was MLG Dallas, lots of great games. dreamhack was decent too... mainly because of the commentary by total-biscuit..
don't get me wrong, i enjoy playing starcraft2 but, for me at least, it looses rapidly in appel as a viewer e-sport.
On December 07 2010 07:47 LancerStarcraft wrote: GSL Zergs should stop going hatch before pool when they know they are going to get 2-rax/4raxed all-ined.
this post shows you don't know anything about zerg.
I'll explain to why top zergs are hatch firsting still even though there is 2 rax all ins all the time. If you go pool first guess what the terran can do to you? He can push make you cancel your expo (if you didn't make one he'll be even happier) then bunker contain you at the bottom of the ramp.
Then the terran throws down his expo before the zerg can remake/start his if he goes pool first. So that means zerg is already incredibly behind as we all know terran getting his natural before a zerg is super bad for zerg.
Also if you go hatch first you get more larva which = more zerglings when the push comes so you can defend. Nestea defended poorly as he should have been able to defend against that like he did against fake boxer.
I'm gonna disagree with you, not because I think you don't know anything... >_> just because I have a different opinion than you.
I'm not saying don't expand, I'm saying getting the pool first for two reasons. First, you get faster zergling speed, Second, because you can lings out when you KNOW 2 rax pressure is coming. I wasn't actually referring to NesTea in my post, but to use him as an example, he should have at least expected 2 rax since he lost to it twice before in the series. The point of going pool first is that you can defend against early marines/scvs.
I didn't say that GSL Zergs should stop hatch before pooling, I said they should stop hatch before pooling when they know 2 rax is a possibility.
I also don't understand how pooling first makes you MORE susceptible to bunker play. Getting lings faster should make you LESS susceptible to that.
The whole reason the Marine/SCV all-in has come about is that Zergs are using 14 hatch to gain an economic edge. But Terrans realize that this makes Zerg open to losing straight up to early pressure all-ins. Zergs have to respond by diversifying their play to punish Terrans that do that.
To conclude this text storm,
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
On December 07 2010 07:45 rackdude wrote: I can't blame him for what he did. A 14/15 hatch is kind of an economic cheese like a 15 nexus was in BW. I mean, it may be tough for BW players to say so, but with queens the hatch first isn't as necessary. And if you do get it early, with two queen the advantage you get just snowballs. The Tarran is then forced to counter cheese by 2raxing or taking a quick expansion. The quick expansions haven't been explored too much and I'd like to see more, but I can see that most Tarrans are not just going to put up with the quick expo.
I mean, people are saying the late game is imbalanced against Tarran, but it only really ends up bad when the Zerg takes a 14 hatch, the Tarran doesn't early expand, and the Zerg just gets a bunch of drones early. Without the extra econ boost, the late game hasn't changed much from before the patch. Sure, roaches are better, but the mid/late game muta ling bling is still the same, add some ultras and whatnot. It's just that since the patch the 14 hatch is safer, and thus Zergs just have a TON more, and thus it's "imbalanced". A 14 hatch shouldn't be standard, something later like a 13 pool 16 hatch or the 11 pool 18 hatch puts you even in the late game, it's just a lot of Zergs like the free advantage late game.
I agree. 14 hatch is a greedy play so the zerg can have a huge advantage late game. Really if they go pool first the match is more balanced both early game and late game. 14 hatch shouldn't be standard just like 15 nexus and 15 CC aren't standard.
The problem is that the early all-in cheese can be held off. Unlike the protoss cannon cheese, which is strong enough and easy enough to execute that it prevents FE from zerg, the terran cheese has to be executed well to work. Nestea has probably encountered it many times and knows how to hold it off from lesser players but when executed well by the few who can he can't handle it.
IMO, cheese should still exist, it just sucks that's it's so common.
Did BW ever go through a similar phase? It seems like there are some pretty strong cheeses in BW but you don't see them every game(I don't know much about BW though)
On December 07 2010 08:02 Kvz wrote: Heh, I figured when blizzard said at blizzcon that marines are overtuned in the early game that people would begin to start using them en masse. It's not really surprising.
As a 2500 Z (I stopped laddering 2 weeks ago) its really frustrating when people keep saying 'just go one base' or "learn to prepare for it" because in all honesty even if you see it coming, the terran can choose not to attack and just CC and expand behind a bunker. What do you do with the 24 lings you made now lol?
Btw I have been experimenting with my practice partners going 14gas/14pool and the problem with this is that they terran can actually do a slow bunker push as you lack the zerglings early to really defend against it. I"m talking about a bunker to the far side of your natural to deny a natural and then continuously pushing to your ramp with it while blocking off their own base.
Hear hear! A well constructed point that explains exactly why 14 hatch is needed against 2rax pressure. Complete with detailed experience mixed in explaining why you hatch first versus this exact build.
These are the kind of posts that are needed in strategy threads and across teamliquid. No mindlessly copying pro's, just straight up honest experience explained and laid out on a silver plate for us to read.
I want to thank you for posting this and I feel we need to encourage people to post like this more.
No need for TSL_Rain to apologise. Those who have been chucking ad hominems at him like children should be the ones saying sorry.
It's a huge competition, you play to win. Why the fuck would he not play to his strengths, and avoid those of his opponent? It would be stupid NOT to do so. If I, a horrible player, had to play Nestea with 25K on the line, you can bet your jewels that I would be practicing some ridiculous, perfectly-timed 1-base play/ cheese because I know that every second the game goes on, my chances of winning decrease exponentially.
Of course Rain is a damn good player in his own right, but the point still stands: people are attacking him for playing logically, and playing smart. The game is still young, and Blizzard aren't going to make ridiculously huge changes when things have still yet to be explored/discovered. 'Interesting' is subjective, anyway. I'd much rather see a tense short game than a 40-minute macro game.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
That's actually a very bad definition. Then again, Einstein wasn't particularly keen on quantum mechanics.
I actually think it's a great definition. The world is completely deterministic and so is sc2 to an extent. In a deterministic world, it is insane to expect different results from the same state.
So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda.
On December 07 2010 07:51 koolaid1990 wrote: rofl at all these noobs. pool first is much better than 14 hatch. You have enough drones/lings to live enough to get speedlings. Out of 15 zvt games, 9 terrans did a marine push rush on me, i went pool first, and won all. I always go pool first and have never lost against a marine/scv all in or a marine push in general. The trick is to take out around 4 lings by the time he comes with 1 marine, and dont let the scvs block your ramp, which is really ez prevent. And if he does an scv/marine all in to your 1 base, do what fruitdealer did. Move all your drones to the far end, trap the marines from microing more to the back, and take out the marines with your drones and kill the scvs with your front lings. Watch Fruitdealer vs bitbitprime and ull c what i mean.
This made my day, I'm going to sleep just as i stop laughing so hard.
Please, stop saying 14 hatch is greedy, economical all-in, or whatever you want, i dont think nestea is throwing out the chance of winning a lot more money just because he likes his 14 hatch (And before someone says again that he is too greedy, Idra and ret, THE BEST NON KOREAN ZERGS, have been studying 2raxx along with haypro and have got to the conclusion that 14 hatch is the best way to stop it without loosing the eco game right after that, but hey maybe your pool first build is way better than anything they have tried, you have an impressive 9/15 in ZvT)
Quote Ret/Idra all day, it doesn't change the fact Zerg has to figure out the "don't die" opening another way just like Terrans have to figure something out late game.
Although its fun to go watch great players like Jys and MakaPrime get trampled by Zerg late game despite efforts of playing a great overall game. Seriously game 2 of Maka vs NesTea wanted to make me puke. Like any player wants to go through a grueling 30 minute game to get trampled by the late game, with no obvious answer other than, "build more shit than the zerg."
On December 07 2010 07:25 avilo wrote: Ok, so I just LOOOVEEEEE how Zergs complain about this, even Idra/Ret complain, but they conveniently leave out Z>T in a long macro game.
We get it. Two rax seems hard. But maybe complain for a balanced game, not a game where Zerg will have early game + late game dominance lmao...
if this really is a "problem" then TvZ lategame is as much a problem as this is, but Zergs keep their mouths shut about that don't they? Every top Zerg seems content to defend defend defend into freewin, so now when Terrans are like "fuck you Zergs, till blizz fixes lategame we're just gonna do this shit over and over," Zergs whine again? lol...
I never heard from progamers that Z>T in lategame. How can we know that if all games end before 12 min? Didn't Foxer, Jinro, Clide show some good macro games?
Also, you don't get the point of thread. People are talking about how games suck due to allin/cheese strategies, its bad for viewership. I don't see Zerg complaining about balance much here.
If you read the entire thread you would see people calling nerf to the marines and scv. So yes there are Zerg complaining about balance.
Which macro games did Foxer play? I did not watch this whole GSL so please point me to that. As for Jinro he just schooled a guy who was 2 levels below his. I could macro and beat a silver Zerg like that and it does not mean anything. Too bad we won't get to see his style against a good Zerg this season. Clide won a macro game on the most TvZ imba map which is Jungle Basin, The reason why it was close on Shakuras was because Leenock did not use the Broodlords to take out Clide's third when he had a huge as chance to do so.
Pro gamers talk about Z>T late game. I think Jinro did mention his view on Avilo's blog. He said essentially "do damage early or die." He did also said he doesn't mind if that is the state of the game but as long as the map allows Terran to pressure early.
I however disagree with him on this point. A balance game should allow both races equal chance to win both early and late game. One race is trying to hold the other race from exploding in the late game is certainly not balance. You should be able to choose to play defensively if you want to. Not being forced into being aggressive.
On December 07 2010 07:47 LancerStarcraft wrote: GSL Zergs should stop going hatch before pool when they know they are going to get 2-rax/4raxed all-ined.
this post shows you don't know anything about zerg.
I'll explain to why top zergs are hatch firsting still even though there is 2 rax all ins all the time. If you go pool first guess what the terran can do to you? He can push make you cancel your expo (if you didn't make one he'll be even happier) then bunker contain you at the bottom of the ramp.
Then the terran throws down his expo before the zerg can remake/start his if he goes pool first. So that means zerg is already incredibly behind as we all know terran getting his natural before a zerg is super bad for zerg.
Also if you go hatch first you get more larva which = more zerglings when the push comes so you can defend. Nestea defended poorly as he should have been able to defend against that like he did against fake boxer.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Time spent not expanding means you're now locking yourself up your ramp against a terran who can bunker up or just expand themselves. Every zerg knows 2 rax is coming, hence the reason they transfer so many of their drones to their natural to prepare for the inevitable attack. The longer you sit on 1 base the further and further behind you get. Assuming you make enough lings that the terran ends up withdrawing, you now have to expand and begin to saturate. However, the terran while saturating (even moreso with multes) can produce a large army so his window to attack the weakened zerg is gigantic.
That quote, by the way, would only be relevant if they never won a game going hatch first. But as it has been seen plenty of time this gsl, going hatch first can defend against it even though it's very difficult.
On December 07 2010 04:54 Rekrul wrote: hate the game not the playa
and LOL at posting a public apology about that. what a bitch.
He's not apologising about exploiting the game. He's apologising about not practicing and not being able to show the audience what he's capable of. There's a difference. Some people care about their fans and the fans of other professionals in the sport.
On December 07 2010 08:02 z00t wrote: Nestea vs Rain was legit. I mean, when it comes to broader balance concerns like Morrow's use of Reapers, I believe that most of us agreed that players should do whatever it takes to win, and leave the balancing to Blizzard.
You can't just make a 10-minute no-rush rule for SC2 - that's ridiculous. Knowing how to stop certain all-in attacks is a skill in itself.
Even in BW, the better players know to expect some sort of cheesy strat from the lesser players because they know that the less-skilled players can't hope to go head-to-head with them in a macro game. And we don't blame those less-skilled players for sticking with some sort of early game play. So I don't understand why everyone's so riled up with Rain's games in particular.
Actually a lot of people do, lol.
But I agree that we shouldn't blame lesser players for taking any sort of advantage they can. If they don't they aren't true competitors.
Nestea should've expected cheese every game and prepared accordingly.
Everybody that keeps talking about "the fans don't want to see this" crap are so full of it, don't have any real information, and are just making guesses, or listening to a few whiny forum posts as their basis for that claim.
Boxer is super famous for many early game rushes that ended the game early in BW. The fans liked seeing that. He was undisputedly the most popular player of BW due to his insane micro, and he was always considered to be lacking in macro.
I have put forth the evidence that many fans do enjoy micro fests, clever timings, and rushes. Counter with....
Yes. Its a bit of a mess right now. The mu's actually pretty good apart from zerg randomly losing 8 minutes into the game. Just the threat of it has a negative effect on management games too.
On December 07 2010 08:19 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: "build more shit than the zerg."
Sadly its true
SC2 is all about building more stuff. No more strategic placement of mines, tanks, lurkers and recall. All you need, build more shit than your opponent.
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda.
terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know
if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
No. The difference between that and what people are saying is that WWE is just show, just acting. No one said they wanted that. And since when will they be rare? All ins is the most common thing in the world these days, let alone special. You're just bumbling out wonderful words in the hopes to associate them with the argument you're trying to make and make it seem better than it actually is. Reapers were boring to watch. Always the same thing, hard to defend has zerg, not in a million years someone would wow to them.
I don't have a problem with it at all, as a Terran player I feel like its making a Zerg player apologize for winning with hatch first builds. Yeah its cheesy but you can't blame him for doing something that hard counters something else.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
That's actually a very bad definition. Then again, Einstein wasn't particularly keen on quantum mechanics.
I actually think it's a great definition. The world is completely deterministic and so is sc2 to an extent. In a deterministic world, it is insane to expect different results from the same state.
Not a single state is in fact the same so is not insane. //off topic
mehh this is just part of strategy evolution. if you don't see this kinda shit now, you're going to have to see and deal with it eventually. the earlier we see cheesy garbage, the earlier it can be dealt with by players or by blizzard.
I love how I got fucking temp banned for making the exact same point as OP 2 days ago. At any rate, I wholeheartedly agree with the OP's point... the early marine + scv rush is too powerful and ruins the game. Especially when it works 3/3 times against the best zerg player in the world, even when he scouted it and knew it was coming.
/hopefully the mods don't temp ban me again for stating my opinion, like everybody else in this thread. sure, i did reference the earlier banning (which i'm sure you don't like) but it's collateral to the other points i'm making. hopefully you don't feel the need to power trip and screw with me again for expressing my opinion.
On December 07 2010 08:19 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: "build more shit than the zerg."
Sadly its true
SC2 is all about building more stuff. No more strategic placement of mines, tanks, lurkers and recall. All you need, build more shit than your opponent.
You must have been watching SC2 with your eyes closed.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
I would say I am being quite objective. Just try to show where my reasoning is wrong:
I'm judging things from the results I'm seeing. Evidence for an argument. The results are showing me that 14 Hatch does not seem viable 2 Rax. That is the only conclusion I can really draw from the results.
If I could see Zergs using builds other than 14 Hatch against 2-Rax, I would be able to see how viable they are compared with 14 Hatch build. But I can't compare them since all I see is 14 Hatch losing to 2 Rax.
If someone says "14 Hatch is best against 2-Rax" I can say "Look at Foxer's games. Look at Rain's games. Those are examples of why I believe you are wrong". The counterargument SHOULD something like "Well look at so-and-so's games where he used Pool first against 2 Rax and failed. And look at this other player's game where he used another non-14 Hatch build against 2-Rax and failed, and tell me what they could have done otherwise". Presenting examples as evidence as part of the argument.
The only real thing the Pro-14 Hatchers have to go on are verbal reasoning and testimony from Idra and Ret.
Notice: Right now what I am saying is not whether or not 14 Hatch is the best build to use against 2-Rax. Although I don't think it is, I recognize that this is a highly debatable issue and the reasoning could be true and that Ret and Idra's testimony should be considered.
What I AM saying is that it's not hard to see why people think 14 Hatch is bad against 2-Rax. They can see the results from several examples of Zergs losing to 2-Rax with 14 Hatch. Because this evidence is more convincing, the argument seems stronger for those in favor of this viewpoint. And saying "They're only going 14-Hatch because other openings aren't as good" isn't as convincing of an argument because results and high-level games you can watch are more convincing evidence than reasoning and testimony. And there aren't as many examples you can reference to support this argument because there aren't as many games you can present as evidence. For an example, it is why people pay more attention to a thread in the Strategy forum if it has Replays in it.
If someone favors the testimony of Ret and Idra over games you can actually see, I believe that HE is the one being more subjective than objective.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
No. The difference between that and what people are saying is that WWE is just show, just acting. No one said they wanted that. And since when will they be rare? All ins is the most common thing in the world these days, let alone special. You're just bumbling out wonderful words in the hopes to associate them with the argument you're trying to make and make it seem better than it actually is. Reapers were boring to watch. Always the same thing, hard to defend has zerg, not in a million years someone would wow to them.
Okay, let's go through this one by one:
I said "Some WWE sytem" implying the show is more important than the competition. I didn't imply it was the WWE. If you want to infer that, go ahead, but it's not my intention.
All-ins are very common, which is why I didn't say they were special. I said amazing, drawn-out games are made special because of the amount of all-ins we often see. If people play for show then the show as a whole becomes less amazing.
I can't even understand what your "bumbling out wonderful words" sentence means so please rewrite it. And your Reaper example doesn't build your argument or contrast mine so it's completely out of place.
Seriously, SCV's and marines are far from broken. It's not the unit itself that is the problem, it's the strategy as a whole that is difficult to deal with.
But as a Zerg this rly isnt much of a problem. It might force pool first but that's ok since the economic difference is hardly noticible compared to hatch first.
Besides, I've handled these all-ins quite well with drones and some lings. If he brings 8 scv's, bring 10+ droens and focus fire down the marines with all your units, a sunken or two while u do this is good too.I think Zergs are afraid to use their drones. obviously if u hold off teh attack you're fine since he's sacrificing scv's whioch are harder to replace than drones. You should also have a queen at your nat as well anyway. just keep a ling outside the terran base and don't be too greedy.
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda. terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know
if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
But if he sees your 11 pool and doesn't drop a second rax and goes bunker expo, and you see that, then you don't pump the lings...
Terrans don't tend to be aggressive against pool first zerg's because it's not clear if they're going to be going for a one-base all-in. Having troops out on the field would be a way to lose a game.
Once the hatch starts to go down, then you will see some aggression. It won't be two rax, but it will be a a lot harder to defend because of the lack of creep, crawlers and economy.
That's why you aren't seeing pool first builds hold off a 2-rax. The same reason you aren't seeing a 1 rax FE lose to a six pool. The timings don't work out that way.
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
Pro gamers goal is not to stop one strategy. its to encompass all possibilities and attempt to find a stable build against 2 rax and beyond. Hatch first not only provides more larvae but it doesn't cripple you economically. Most terrans are going for that CC after 2 rax anyways, so if you dont expand, make build lings they still have marines that can pressure while they have an expo and you dont.
If you pool first and only make 4 lings youre gonna get rolled anyways. if you go pool first you can really only make enough lings for about 4, if you go hatch first you can get about 6 right away incase theres a 2rax rush. If there no rax rush youre left in the most ideal situation for zerg. Its really a win win. And the fact that you dont believe Idra/Ret have practiced a bunch of variations is extremely laughable on your part. I dont see why they would even need to respond to your post at this point.
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda.
terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know
if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG
Excellent point! Zerg cannot afford to pump lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
I recommend Zerg solve this problem by not pumping lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
Zergs scout and adjust. A profound concept, I know.
what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
The build that jdseemoreglass floated goes 11 overlord pool 16 queen 18 hatchery. You can plant your hatch at a reasonable time.
I agree with everyone who thinks the game should be won in every legitimate way possible: Mindgames, all in cheese, insane gambles, abuse of imbalances and "over powered" units. You are there first and foremost to win a tournament.
Let Blizzard and maybe eventually map makers work on imbalances and keeping game possibilities interesting. As a player, you are there to win. You can always add extra entertainment with a FBH dance afterwards. And if the game is as good as people say it is, "quality matches" will become more and more frequent with time.
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda. terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know
if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
But if he sees your 11 pool and doesn't drop a second rax and goes bunker expo, and you see that, then you don't pump the lings...
2rax expo. its far more flexible and threatening. im not talking about 1rax expo
On December 07 2010 08:19 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: "build more shit than the zerg."
Sadly its true
SC2 is all about building more stuff. No more strategic placement of mines, tanks, lurkers and recall. All you need, build more shit than your opponent.
You must have been watching SC2 with your eyes closed.
Yeah he must have been cause, 1a'ing broodlords and mashing the Z and U keys probably all sound the same.
I don't see the problem with Rain beating NesTea. He clearly outplayed him. NesTea was unable to adapt to early pressure in any of the games he lost, and game 3 Rain was not even close to all in, he was getting his third CC when the game ended. NesTea made bad decisions with bad micro, period. I'm so tired of everyone crying NERF the second there's a strategy that is difficult to win against.
On December 07 2010 08:38 ThE_ShiZ wrote: But as a Zerg this rly isnt much of a problem. It might force pool first but that's ok since the economic difference is hardly noticible compared to hatch first.
No, there will be a huge economic difference because if you pool first, it's just giving the Terran a free ticket to bunker wall-in and then expand his entire heart out while you're struggling to break his wall-in.
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda.
terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know
if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG
Excellent point! Zerg cannot afford to pump lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
I recommend Zerg solve this problem by not pumping lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
Zergs scout and adjust. A profound concept, I know.
what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
The build that jdseemoreglass floated goes 11 overlord pool 16 queen 18 hatchery. You can plant your hatch at a reasonable time.
we're getting into theory crafting territory but what makes 2rax stronger than what you seem to acknowledge is the fact that its unscoutable in a sense that you can not distinguish between 4rax all in timing from a 2 rax scv all in timing from a 2 rax light pressure into expo
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
I would say I am being quite objective. Just try to show where my reasoning is wrong:
I'm judging things from the results I'm seeing. Evidence for an argument. The results are showing me that 14 Hatch does not seem viable 2 Rax. That is the only conclusion I can really draw from the results.
If I could see Zergs using builds other than 14 Hatch against 2-Rax, I would be able to see how viable they are compared with 14 Hatch build. But I can't compare them since all I see is 14 Hatch losing to 2 Rax.
If someone says "14 Hatch is best against 2-Rax" I can say "Look at Foxer's games. Look at Rain's games. Those are examples of why I believe you are wrong". The counterargument SHOULD something like "Well look at so-and-so's games where he used another build against 2 Rax and failed. And look at this other player's games where he did another build and failed". Presenting examples as evidence as part of the argument.
The only real thing the Pro-14 Hatchers have to go on are verbal reasoning and testimony from Idra and Ret.
Notice: Right now what I am saying is not whether or not 14 Hatch is the best build to use against 2-Rax. Although I don't think it is, I recognize that this is a highly debatable issue and the reasoning could be true and that Ret and Idra's testimony should be considered.
What I AM saying is that it's not hard to see why people think 14 Hatch is bad against 2-Rax. They can see the results from several examples of Zergs losing to 2-Rax with 14 Hatch. Because this evidence is more convincing, the argument seems stronger for those in favor of this viewpoint. And saying "They're only going 14-Hatch because other openings aren't as good" isn't as convincing of an argument because results and high-level games you can watch are more convincing evidence than reasoning and testimony. And there aren't as many examples you can reference to support this argument because there aren't as many games you can present as evidence. For an example, it is why people pay more attention to a thread in the Strategy forum if it has Replays in it.
If someone favors the testimony of Ret and Idra over games you can actually see, I believe that HE is the one being more subjective than objective.
The counter argument is that there are plenty of games where the zerg 14 hatches and still manages to hold. Its not just verbal reasoning. FD and Nestea went hatch first literally everygame against terran so far and those 2 are the champions. The Foxer games vs Leenock this season went into macro games, leenock was able to hold his 2 rack pressure after going hatch first.
I agree, its easy to think hatch first is inferior, I too thought this until Ret explained it. As a zerg player that makes a lot of sense and its not easy for me to see why its ideal, not only to stop early pressure but to put you in an ideal situation as the game progresses.
No doubt that Im being partially subjective/biased. But I dont think im saying anything unreasonable.
On December 07 2010 08:02 Kvz wrote: Heh, I figured when blizzard said at blizzcon that marines are overtuned in the early game that people would begin to start using them en masse. It's not really surprising.
As a 2500 Z (I stopped laddering 2 weeks ago) its really frustrating when people keep saying 'just go one base' or "learn to prepare for it" because in all honesty even if you see it coming, the terran can choose not to attack and just CC and expand behind a bunker. What do you do with the 24 lings you made now lol?
Btw I have been experimenting with my practice partners going 14gas/14pool and the problem with this is that they terran can actually do a slow bunker push as you lack the zerglings early to really defend against it. I"m talking about a bunker to the far side of your natural to deny a natural and then continuously pushing to your ramp with it while blocking off their own base.
exactly. like i said somewhere in other thread, you will either need insane skill to hold off the all-in or you mh to see the first 5mins if he is gonna do that cheese or not. either way i believe is caused by the design flaw by blizzard.
marines's attack animation maybe is quicker than BW or something. and the marauder, we all know this unit is messed up. even if marauder is fine but when Marine+marauder go together, we can all see there is something wrong with the combo. (how the heck do a ranged non-AOE firebat version with slow orb effect unit that allow to use Stim get passed the alpha testing???)
about the 2xhatchery, the larva mechanic need a small fix or the reactor need a revision by blizzard.
On December 07 2010 08:19 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: "build more shit than the zerg."
Sadly its true
SC2 is all about building more stuff. No more strategic placement of mines, tanks, lurkers and recall. All you need, build more shit than your opponent.
You must have been watching SC2 with your eyes closed.
Yeah he must have been cause, 1a'ing broodlords and mashing the Z and U keys probably all sound the same.
There's no need to exagerate, it's not going to get us anywhere. I've seen some amazing micro in SC2 especially with void rays and banshees.
Terran needs a late game buff so they don't feel like they have to all in early ever game to win.
I think that coupled with some tweaks in Zerg early game would be great. I think that Spinecrawler build and burrow times receiving a reduction might be all that's needed.
I think it's just frustrating staying up until 2:00 am and watching these kind of games. Nestea won both the games that lasted longer than 6minutes. But Rain did what he should do: He tried his hardest and did anything to win. I think I would have been cheated out of 20 dollars even more if Rain didn't try his hardest to win. I don't want a player playing below his full potential by trying to play a game that he knows he can't win from the beginning.
Zerg macro is insane, so Rain shouldn't apologize for not letting a zerg do what a zerg wants to do.
Altough I wholeheartly agree that early game T is a bit OP. Im a bit annoyed by Z expecting hatch first always to work. Its been proven to fail against early presure T's. So do a more safe build like July's build, he didnt have trouble early game.
On December 07 2010 08:53 Stuv wrote: Altough I wholeheartly agree that early game T is a bit OP. Im a bit annoyed by Z expecting hatch first always to work. Its been proven to fail against early presure T's. So do a more safe build like July's build, he didnt have trouble early game.
July's build isn't 'safer' because he never got 2 raxd. Pool first isn't safer than Hatch first vs 2 rax.
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda.
terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know
if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG
Excellent point! Zerg cannot afford to pump lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
I recommend Zerg solve this problem by not pumping lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
Zergs scout and adjust. A profound concept, I know.
what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
The build that jdseemoreglass floated goes 11 overlord pool 16 queen 18 hatchery. You can plant your hatch at a reasonable time.
You can't realistically not pump Lings to close to that 12 mark against a 1 rax 2 depot wall you can't scout behind on Steppes, Close Position Metal, or Delta Quadrant. Both Steppes and Metal can be instant-lose if the Terran player scouts you building a round of drones out of an inject because the rush distances are too short. Unless you're cross position Metal or on Shakuras, you're just not safe doing that without some lings to control the map - and there's plenty of evidence for that in the GSL. The current maps almost lend to the strength of 2 rax pressure almost more than the build order itself does.
I think 11 pool 18 hatch is undoubtedly something Ret & IdrA have probably not explored, but if those bunkers can go down before you can get enough lings out to prevent a bunker block it's probably worse than 14 pool. You might be able to get that hatch down at 16 plus have more lings earlier.
what about FD? he was doing all-ins that I didn't think he needed to do, the most exciting game was the first one on steppes and maybe the LT game. I don't really think people should complain about the players playing the game, all-ins are stoppable but they are a part of the game.
On December 07 2010 08:19 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: "build more shit than the zerg."
Sadly its true
SC2 is all about building more stuff. No more strategic placement of mines, tanks, lurkers and recall. All you need, build more shit than your opponent.
You must have been watching SC2 with your eyes closed.
No offense, Chill. I respect all what you do in this community. But lately I find your commentaries too negative against average TL-poster and all that you pursue is too criticize everyone who says anything like "I don't like map, balance, all-in, GSL, cheese", and even bashing Jinro for trying to post his opinion, which is based on his real experience.
Look how people recommend GSL games to watch... most of games are recommended NOT to watch by over 70%. Which is quite alarming and apparently SC2 is failing at viewership. Why you trying to fight facts so hard? We are the SC community and if we don't say what we feel how do you see Blizzard improving situation. When I skim through threads I see most people here disappointed and complaining. If you see some amazing interesting stuff in these games you are lucky to be in these 20% who likes current scene but it doesn't help overall.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
No. The difference between that and what people are saying is that WWE is just show, just acting. No one said they wanted that. And since when will they be rare? All ins is the most common thing in the world these days, let alone special. You're just bumbling out wonderful words in the hopes to associate them with the argument you're trying to make and make it seem better than it actually is. Reapers were boring to watch. Always the same thing, hard to defend has zerg, not in a million years someone would wow to them.
Okay, let's go through this one by one:
I said "Some WWE sytem" implying the show is more important than the competition. I didn't imply it was the WWE. If you want to infer that, go ahead, but it's not my intention.
All-ins are very common, which is why I didn't say they were special. I said amazing, drawn-out games are made special because of the amount of all-ins we often see. If people play for show then the show as a whole becomes less amazing.
I can't even understand what your "bumbling out wonderful words" sentence means so please rewrite it. And your Reaper example doesn't build your argument or contrast mine so it's completely out of place.
I think there is one important difference we need to consider:
The games of Hongun vs Fruitdealer were HIGHLY entertaining (imo) because both were constantly playing mindgames against each other, and one of them did basicly something unexpected in each match-up. Consequently every game PLAYED OUT DIFFERENTLY!
Sorry for caps, but I think that's the crucial point: there's nothing mindgame-ish about 2 rax scv all-in. There's nothing even "unexpected" about it, everybody's seen it, every zerg has been there. There is a HUGE difference between risky cheese builds like baneling busts or proxy stargates and the 2 rax all-in. Nearly all of the cheese builds only work because you catch your opponent off-guard, you have the element of surprise on your side. The 2 rax all-in is nothing like that. The opponent can expect it and prepare all he wants, he will still lose about 50% of the games. This is what makes it boring - I do NOT want a super fast DT tech to succeed if the build is scouted. I do NOT want proxy stargate void rays to succeed if they are scouted. Consequently, fruitdealer stomped over hongun after he has scouted the stargates. Those builds are exciting because the observer is like "will he scout it in time, ohh...he scouts it but very late, will it be enough....". 2 rax all-ins are the exact opposite, the observer knows that zerg expects it and STILL has a high loss-rate.
Rains style is basically the reason why Zerg have won gsl 1 and 2. Terran don't try anthing but the cheese thats most popular at this very moment. Once it got figured out they get owned, while zerg developed there game. Jinro is the perfect example how to do it. Train a lot, l2p and then roflstomp anybody, completely ignoring the whole debate ("T has to because well we never tried, but T has to anyways!"). So yeah, I'm cool with Rain apologizing, he kicked out a player who clearly was better than him, he did it to have a shot at the big money, he will not stand a chance in future tournaments though.
Would I have done the same? Maybe, it is a hard call. Get good over time or fast but unreliable/unstable cash-in..
Why do none of these people throw up one, maybe 2 spinecrawlers at their main when their opponent is all-in? Instead of just throwing lings on the SCVs.
I'm not angry with Rain for winning. I'm angry with Nestea for losing. Period. If the rush is stoppable, period, it's damn near fine balance wise assuming it has an appropriate cost for Terran. We can argue all day if the cost is appropriate but you could do the same for something like a Dark Templar in BW.
On December 07 2010 09:01 Pondo wrote: I can't believe there are people in this thread actually arguing with Ret on how to play ZvT. I mean... seriously...
you'd be suprised how many of these people are bronze
On December 07 2010 09:02 chokke wrote: Why do none of these people throw up one, maybe 2 spinecrawlers at their main when their opponent is all-in? Instead of just throwing lings on the SCVs.
Well, that means you're sacrificing your natural hatchery. If you're saying they don't have it yet, then the zerg player is investing 300 minerals in static defense without an expansion to show for it, meaning the terran gets a free expansion and an easy win 5 minutes down the road.
On December 07 2010 09:02 chokke wrote: Why do none of these people throw up one, maybe 2 spinecrawlers at their main when their opponent is all-in? Instead of just throwing lings on the SCVs.
because 2 spinecrawlers are 8 zerglings. without those the marines will just roll in. the zerglings usually cover the spine at the expo or main so that it can be finished. also, 2 spines aren't enough, in a short time there will be enough marines to snipe. if you dont spread your spines they can bypass them and snipe drones or the hatch. either way, doesn't work. people already figured out the best counter to this build (early fe + lings + 1 spine + drones) but still it isn't good enough (w/l of 40~50% for zerg).
/e on a sidenote: this apology isn't going to save esport. I am more entertainted watching events like dreamhack or mlg or even streams on tl. Even if gom service were actually decent (it isn't) I still wouldn't repurchase, because the games are not very high level in my opinion.
lets state the fact here GSL 3 was the most boring GSL out of the 2 I used to love ZVT but its just so painful to watch, i think its not Rain's fault though!! Its the game!!
On December 07 2010 09:02 chokke wrote: Why do none of these people throw up one, maybe 2 spinecrawlers at their main when their opponent is all-in? Instead of just throwing lings on the SCVs.
because 2 spinecrawlers are 8 zerglings. without those the marines will just roll in. the zerglings usually cover the spine at the expo or main so that it can be finished. also, 2 spines aren't enough, in a short time there will be enough marines to snipe. if you dont spread your spines they can bypass them and snipe drones or the hatch. either way, doesn't work. people already figured out the best counter to this build (early fe + lings + 1 spine + drones) but still it isn't good enough (w/l of 40~50% for zerg).
So basically they haven't figured out the best counter to this build yet? The best counter only results in a 40-50% win rate for the zerg? I think not.
As a Terran I can tell you that the match up is screwed up after mid-game in Zergs favor. Needs to be adjusted and the all-ins will go away. It has something to do with sling/bane/muta as a combo. I think T needs a more mobile way to deal with muta.
Well I certainly believed they tried. It is not like "a super secret" build that just appeared. Right now I think there is no better counter and 40-50% win is all zerg can hope for. I am not surprised though, terrans have figured out one of their strength (best t1 unit, best worker) and combined them at the perfect time. I do not know how blizzard can fix this, but I don't see a way for zerg to adapt to it either.
/e so jinro was cheating when he completely outplayed his zerg opponent lategame doomdash? or what are you trying to say? :rolleyes:
The only way to counter this build is by staying 1 base and we all know how bad zergs are if they stayed for 1 base for too long Also the fact that Terran might be even spawn at close position
I'm an awful Bronze player, but I've been taking Idra and Ret's side on hatch first the whole time. I surely don't know anything about the game better than they do except how to lose a lot.
I do have 2 awful Bronze level questions though.
1. Would it be viable to hatch first in the Main against 2-Rax? 2. If you go hatch first in the Main and they've only faked 2-Rax all-in, how far behind does that put you?
On December 07 2010 09:14 DooMDash wrote: As a Terran I can tell you that the match up is screwed up after mid-game in Zergs favor. Needs to be adjusted and the all-ins will go away. It has something to do with sling/bane/muta as a combo. I think T needs a more mobile way to deal with muta.
(2000 diamond for reference.)
This is kinda true. Massing missile turrets is so brood war. Vikings, Terran's air-to-air unit gets shit on by mutaslisks in groups :/.
Upgraded marines shit on Mutas but any decent Zerg can harass with mutas and have a group of marines running in circles without losing his muta ball. Thors own mutas but they are also one of the slowest combat units.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Yeah you Blizzard.
Besides the games being boring I find it hilarious TSL_Rain is apologizing for winning. Considering the amount of money they're playing for it doesn't surprise me at all they'll do anything to win if it's legal.
On December 07 2010 09:18 Pudge_172 wrote: I'm an awful Bronze player, but I've been taking Idra and Ret's side on hatch first the whole time. I surely don't know anything about the game better than they do except how to lose a lot.
I do have 2 awful Bronze level questions though.
1. Would it be viable to hatch first in the Main against 2-Rax? 2. If you go hatch first in the Main and they've only faked 2-Rax all-in, how far behind does that put you?
Depends on the map and where you put it. The main reason you want to hatch at your Natural is you get more creep and the terran is shooting something that is NOT YOUR DRONES AT YOUR MAIN. You want your 2nd Hatch to be a distance away. The marines take a while to kill your hatch and this buys you time for Lings to hatch and drones to mine. If they were attacking your main hatchery they would just kill all your workers first and you would lose instantly.
And if you Hatch first in the main and DONT get attacked.. um.. it depends on WHEN they decide to attack and what you build to stop it or what build you are going for. Unless its like a 5-6 minute mark attack an in-base hatch really doesn't set you back at all assuming you have SOME drones mining at your natural and a hatchery there.
On December 07 2010 08:36 Chill wrote:I said "Some WWE sytem" implying the show is more important than the competition. I didn't imply it was the WWE. If you want to infer that, go ahead, but it's not my intention.
It is in a way and it's true for every spectator sport. If the show wasn't as important to the competition, it wouldn't gain widespread appeal and thus wouldn't be a big deal. Games like football and basketball are big because they're fun to watch, making the show equal with the competition. Conversely, chess isn't and therefore has almost no mass appeal as a competition.
Sports, games, etc. are all forms of entertainment and only flourish as such, and while it's always great to find out who's the best, it's done in the name of the show. Without viewers, competitive/professional Starcraft is basically nothing.
On December 07 2010 08:56 bokeevboke wrote: Look how people recommend GSL games to watch... most of games are recommended NOT to watch by over 70%. Which is quite alarming and apparently SC2 is failing at viewership. Why you trying to fight facts so hard? We are the SC community and if we don't say what we feel how do you see Blizzard improving situation. When I skim through threads I see most people here disappointed and complaining. If you see some amazing interesting stuff in these games you are lucky to be in these 20% who likes current scene but it doesn't help overall.
Please do not bring up the "recommended game" polls as support for your argument. They are about as ridiculous as the amount of whining in this thread. Basically all games that Jinro wins are recommended while all games he lost are boring shit. Even that game where the opponent mass roach against tanks + marauders had like a 80% recommendation rate.
2k Diamond Zerg here figured I'd toss in my 2 cents.
14 hatch vs not 14 hatch builds: You need to 14 hatch if you want to stand a chance because of the creep spread; any build where you don't get the creep spreed from the 14 hatch at the natural it's impossible to stop them from containing you with bunkers, secondly due to the fact that marines have no attack delay unlike zerglings you need to fight them on creep when using slow zerglings to stop the shoot n scoot from making your lings completely cost ineffective, you also need the creep spread to build forward spines so that you can survive a all in. Rain's play: He's a progamer he's payed to win not put on a show.
Balance issues: No numerical nerfs / buffs are needed (though the -5 seconds for bunkers on the PTR makes me leery) instead either add an attack delay to the marines or remove the attack delay from zerglings would go a long way towards solving this issue. Is 14 Hatch economic cheese: No as I previously mentioned 14 hatch is the safest zerg build possible.
On December 07 2010 09:29 TheButtonmen wrote: 2k Diamond Zerg here figured I'd toss in my 2 cents.
14 hatch vs not 14 hatch builds: You need to 14 hatch if you want to stand a chance because of the creep spread; any build where you don't get the creep spreed from the 14 hatch at the natural it's impossible to stop them from containing you with bunkers, secondly due to the fact that marines have no attack delay unlike zerglings you need to fight them on creep when using slow zerglings to stop the shoot n scoot from making your lings completely cost ineffective, you also need the creep spread to build forward spines so that you can survive a all in. Rain's play: He's a progamer he's payed to win not put on a show.
Balance issues: No numerical nerfs / buffs are needed (though the -5 seconds for bunkers on the PTR makes me leery) instead either add an attack delay to the marines or remove the attack delay from zerglings would go a long way towards solving this issue. Is 14 Hatch economic cheese: No as I previously mentioned 14 hatch is the safest zerg build possible.
Why even 14 hatch? Why not 12 or 13 hatch if 2rax is so prevalent? Considering you're still on 2base I feel as though even though there's a noticeable economic "hit" per se, there's also you better countering pressure, etc.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
I would say I am being quite objective. Just try to show where my reasoning is wrong:
I'm judging things from the results I'm seeing. Evidence for an argument. The results are showing me that 14 Hatch does not seem viable 2 Rax. That is the only conclusion I can really draw from the results.
If I could see Zergs using builds other than 14 Hatch against 2-Rax, I would be able to see how viable they are compared with 14 Hatch build. But I can't compare them since all I see is 14 Hatch losing to 2 Rax.
If someone says "14 Hatch is best against 2-Rax" I can say "Look at Foxer's games. Look at Rain's games. Those are examples of why I believe you are wrong". The counterargument SHOULD something like "Well look at so-and-so's games where he used another build against 2 Rax and failed. And look at this other player's games where he did another build and failed". Presenting examples as evidence as part of the argument.
The only real thing the Pro-14 Hatchers have to go on are verbal reasoning and testimony from Idra and Ret.
Notice: Right now what I am saying is not whether or not 14 Hatch is the best build to use against 2-Rax. Although I don't think it is, I recognize that this is a highly debatable issue and the reasoning could be true and that Ret and Idra's testimony should be considered.
What I AM saying is that it's not hard to see why people think 14 Hatch is bad against 2-Rax. They can see the results from several examples of Zergs losing to 2-Rax with 14 Hatch. Because this evidence is more convincing, the argument seems stronger for those in favor of this viewpoint. And saying "They're only going 14-Hatch because other openings aren't as good" isn't as convincing of an argument because results and high-level games you can watch are more convincing evidence than reasoning and testimony. And there aren't as many examples you can reference to support this argument because there aren't as many games you can present as evidence. For an example, it is why people pay more attention to a thread in the Strategy forum if it has Replays in it.
If someone favors the testimony of Ret and Idra over games you can actually see, I believe that HE is the one being more subjective than objective.
The counter argument is that there are plenty of games where the zerg 14 hatches and still manages to hold. Its not just verbal reasoning. FD and Nestea went hatch first literally everygame against terran so far and those 2 are the champions. The Foxer games vs Leenock this season went into macro games, leenock was able to hold his 2 rack pressure after going hatch first.
I agree, its easy to think hatch first is inferior, I too thought this until Ret explained it. As a zerg player that makes a lot of sense and its not easy for me to see why its ideal, not only to stop early pressure but to put you in an ideal situation as the game progresses.
No doubt that Im being partially subjective/biased. But I dont think im saying anything unreasonable.
That isn't really a counter-argument though. The argument isn't really "should Zergs EVER 14 Hatch" or "is 14 Hatch auto-lose or not vs. 2-Rax". The argument is "SHOULD Zergs go 14 Hatch vs. 2-Rax". People that say "no" say Zergs lose too often against 2-Rax with 14 Hatch, and point to the various games that support this argument. They feel Zergs could try other builds than continue doing a strategy that consistently makes them lose. People that say "yes" say it's the BEST response to 2-Rax and point to verbal reasoning and Idra/Ret testimony. People in this group feel that 2-Rax is so strong that they HAVE to go 14 Hatch, what they feel is "The best response to 2-Rax" just to keep up with it.
Pointing to games where Zergs win against 2-Rax just supports an argument that Zergs shouldn't complain about 2-Rax because it's possible to win against it. Those games would belong in a "Can 14 Hatch beat 2-Rax" argument. The argument in this topic already assumes that 14 Hatch can win against it, but it s still really hard to pull off.
The anti-14 Hatchers say "Zergs should stop 14 Hatching against 2-Rax because they lose too much against it and should do something different" and the pro-14 Hatchers say "14 Hatch is the only viable response to 2-Rax because 2-Rax beats every other build. However, 2-Rax is still very hard to hold off with 14 Hatch", leading several in this group to believe this shows imbalance because the "best strat" against 2-Rax isn't completely consistent (though, of course, imbalance isn't the core of this argument). If the argument DIDN'T assume 2-Rax was really strong against 14 Hatch, then the pro-14 Hatchers wouldn't be complaining about how hard 2-Rax is to hold off, and the anti-14 Hatchers wouldn't exist.
Rain did the right thing. He used the strategy that worked best for him in order to win. The goal for a player in the tournament is to win not to impress all the viewers. Besides not every game series can feel amazing and when amazing ones come it makes them even more exciting. Rain shouldn't have apologized for what he did. He lost 2 macro games quite hard earlier in the series so he went for a more strategic play. "Cheese" perhaps but it is still a legitimate strategy.
Blind baneling nest, multiple spines seems to be vital just to live for 5 mins so we got to give up the gains and get them. I think multiple Spines is the way, 2-3 at natural just to be safe and not droning much at all just relying on crawlers.
Blistering Sands with 2 entrances and Steppes of War messes things up in many ways but thats life we have to be significantly weak for the 1st 10 mins and vulnerable to multiple timings.
Blizzard doesn't change things early on and even in expansions I doubt any early game unit will ever be added.
They could solve all these cheesey lame problems by causing structure(hatch+tumour only) spawned creep to dmg enemy workers by 4 dmg/s.
A bonus dmg on zerglings vs scvs would have reprocussions for later game harass and attacking repairing stuff but they could make that dmg bonus only occur on creep also.
But they've never shown interest in giving zerg more options directly ever for early game.
They could always give the queen +25 extra energy when built which she could use to lay a tumour when she's built and so maybe spread the creep just outside of natural in time to build a crawler earliar or for her to have energy to do 1 transfusion instead of an inject.
Nestea didn't micro well and made some bad decisions in the steppes game and xel naga game imo. He didn't throw up a spine right away in the steppes game and engaged in a poor position instead of delaying until the spine came up. Also it's lol steppes the map is f'ing ridiculously small and hard for zerg anyways.
I don't remember if he threw the spine down right away in the xel naga game, but it was within range of the bunker. Even so I though he should have pulled drones and lings when the spine got into the red and he would have been fine and probably would have won the game from that point on as it seems it would have been about even for two equally skilled players. I mean remember who won the first two gsls? =/
I think it's hilarious how people are putting so much stock into what happens in one gsl series like it's the new written in stone law of starcraft. On ladder the matchup might look fine. Emphasis on might though and I think a lot of the maps on ladder are horrible. ZvP PvP and PvT seems more broken to me than ZvT but the game is still very well balanced taking everything into consideration.
I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work.
i've paid $50 to watch fedor knock someone out in the first round. $20 for whole season is nothing. you guys are complaining about cheese in the ro8...you guys should complain to boxer, he started it
The early all-ins won't stop by buffing late game terran, it being "broken" or not. It will stop by making those all-ins less autowin. Period.
As far as the terran late game being so awful, all the people (checking a few randomly, gold level, silver level mostly, and only a few diamond), need to back it up with evidence and not "lol late game terran don't work", because the "it doesn't work" argument, isn't one. Jinro showed a couple good late game oriented terran plays, and I personnaly seen some pretty convincing late game play from terrans such as Tarson, or Drewbie, against zergs.
The exemples doesn't make an argument for the "it's balance" part I agree, but they are enough to warrant arguments from the " it's broken"part. So please stop just throwing the "terran late game sucks" sentence every other post as if it would become true just because you say it a lot.
Furthermore, late game depending a lot on personnal skill, expension timing, harrass and so on, it's hard to blame it all on the race.
Besides it makes the threads pretty horrible.
On another level, can we just all agree that too powerfull all-ins must be toned down? Without even speaking of race or matchups, and regardless of potential late game advantages?
No, there will be a huge economic difference because if you pool first, it's just giving the Terran a free ticket to bunker wall-in and then expand his entire heart out while you're struggling to break his wall-in.
And if you hatch first he's going to wall in just as easily. It's not a free ticket. you can blocjk it with a few drones. I havebn';t gotten bunker blocked since 1.0
On December 07 2010 09:02 chokke wrote: Why do none of these people throw up one, maybe 2 spinecrawlers at their main when their opponent is all-in? Instead of just throwing lings on the SCVs.
Well, that means you're sacrificing your natural hatchery. If you're saying they don't have it yet, then the zerg player is investing 300 minerals in static defense without an expansion to show for it, meaning the terran gets a free expansion and an easy win 5 minutes down the road.
Pulling all workers to the opponent's base to kill his stuff is not free.
In BW, a 12 Nex'ing Protoss would be fine if Terran decided to bunker rush and pull many SCVs to kill the natural nexus, because the cost of killing it was actually higher than the cost of planting it...
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda.
terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know
if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG
Excellent point! Zerg cannot afford to pump lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
I recommend Zerg solve this problem by not pumping lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
Zergs scout and adjust. A profound concept, I know.
what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
The build that jdseemoreglass floated goes 11 overlord pool 16 queen 18 hatchery. You can plant your hatch at a reasonable time.
I think 11 pool 18 hatch is undoubtedly something Ret & IdrA have probably not explored, but if those bunkers can go down before you can get enough lings out to prevent a bunker block it's probably worse than 14 pool. You might be able to get that hatch down at 16 plus have more lings earlier.
With 11 Overpool, your Zerglings should spawn at the same time as Terran's marines. I doubt he can reasonably bunker you in.
On December 07 2010 09:43 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work.
A) If you rush lings + ling speed your income is miles behind there and they simple don't push instead opting to take an expand thus leaving you behind and with a pile of useless lings (aka you need to bane bust which is a very risky move)
B) You have half the larva which means you can't make as many lings*
C) You dont have the creep spread by your ramp to help contest wall ins / contains.
I find it disheartening that they blame the player for all ins, when its a result of balancing issue. (either marine + scv all in are too strong, or the zerg mid-late game is to strong forcing the terran to all in or lose in a 30 min battle).
Im not suggesting that I know how to balance the game or even offer insight in which strategy is strong or not, but I feel like the pros are playing the way they are playing for a reason. Its not just because he likes to be a dirty all in player. Balance affects strategy.
On December 07 2010 09:43 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work.
A) If you rush lings + ling speed your income is miles behind there and they simple don't push instead opting to take an expand thus leaving you behind and with a pile of useless lings (aka you need to bane bust which is a very risky move)
B) You have half the larva which means you can't make as many lings.
C) You dont have the creep spread by your ramp to help contest wall ins / contains.
You have an earlier queen than with a hatch first build, so you don't have half the larvae unless you put down a tumour first, and your lings should be out early enough to deal with an SCV trying to bunker.
Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
why dont you go 11 pool and see if you can win I mean terran can scout that and if he does he will play economically if larvae production increased i think zerg can play 1 base though it will be op late game -.-
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
As much as I love Jinro, you can't argue the fact that he hasn't played any good Zergs in the GSL. Moon was playing like 1700 Diamond against him.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
I would say I am being quite objective. Just try to show where my reasoning is wrong:
I'm judging things from the results I'm seeing. Evidence for an argument. The results are showing me that 14 Hatch does not seem viable 2 Rax. That is the only conclusion I can really draw from the results.
If I could see Zergs using builds other than 14 Hatch against 2-Rax, I would be able to see how viable they are compared with 14 Hatch build. But I can't compare them since all I see is 14 Hatch losing to 2 Rax.
If someone says "14 Hatch is best against 2-Rax" I can say "Look at Foxer's games. Look at Rain's games. Those are examples of why I believe you are wrong". The counterargument SHOULD something like "Well look at so-and-so's games where he used another build against 2 Rax and failed. And look at this other player's games where he did another build and failed". Presenting examples as evidence as part of the argument.
The only real thing the Pro-14 Hatchers have to go on are verbal reasoning and testimony from Idra and Ret.
Notice: Right now what I am saying is not whether or not 14 Hatch is the best build to use against 2-Rax. Although I don't think it is, I recognize that this is a highly debatable issue and the reasoning could be true and that Ret and Idra's testimony should be considered.
What I AM saying is that it's not hard to see why people think 14 Hatch is bad against 2-Rax. They can see the results from several examples of Zergs losing to 2-Rax with 14 Hatch. Because this evidence is more convincing, the argument seems stronger for those in favor of this viewpoint. And saying "They're only going 14-Hatch because other openings aren't as good" isn't as convincing of an argument because results and high-level games you can watch are more convincing evidence than reasoning and testimony. And there aren't as many examples you can reference to support this argument because there aren't as many games you can present as evidence. For an example, it is why people pay more attention to a thread in the Strategy forum if it has Replays in it.
If someone favors the testimony of Ret and Idra over games you can actually see, I believe that HE is the one being more subjective than objective.
The counter argument is that there are plenty of games where the zerg 14 hatches and still manages to hold. Its not just verbal reasoning. FD and Nestea went hatch first literally everygame against terran so far and those 2 are the champions. The Foxer games vs Leenock this season went into macro games, leenock was able to hold his 2 rack pressure after going hatch first.
I agree, its easy to think hatch first is inferior, I too thought this until Ret explained it. As a zerg player that makes a lot of sense and its not easy for me to see why its ideal, not only to stop early pressure but to put you in an ideal situation as the game progresses.
No doubt that Im being partially subjective/biased. But I dont think im saying anything unreasonable.
That isn't really a counter-argument though. The argument isn't really "should Zergs EVER 14 Hatch" or "is 14 Hatch auto-lose or not vs. 2-Rax". The argument is "SHOULD Zergs go 14 Hatch vs. 2-Rax". People that say "no" say Zergs lose too often against 2-Rax with 14 Hatch, and point to the various games that support this argument. They feel Zergs could try other builds than continue doing a strategy that consistently makes them lose. People that say "yes" say it's the BEST response to 2-Rax and point to verbal reasoning and Idra/Ret testimony. People in this group feel that 2-Rax is so strong that they HAVE to go 14 Hatch, what they feel is "The best response to 2-Rax" just to keep up with it.
Pointing to games where Zergs win against 2-Rax just supports an argument that Zergs shouldn't complain about 2-Rax because it's possible to win against it. Those games would belong in a "Can 14 Hatch beat 2-Rax" argument. The argument in this topic already assumes that 14 Hatch can win against it, but it s still really hard to pull off.
The anti-14 Hatchers say "Zergs should stop 14 Hatching against 2-Rax because they lose too much against it and should do something different" and the pro-14 Hatchers say "14 Hatch is the only viable response to 2-Rax because 2-Rax beats every other build. However, 2-Rax is still very hard to hold off with 14 Hatch", leading several in this group to believe this shows imbalance because the "best strat" against 2-Rax isn't completely consistent (though, of course, imbalance isn't the core of this argument). If the argument DIDN'T assume 2-Rax was really strong against 14 Hatch, then the pro-14 Hatchers wouldn't be complaining about how hard 2-Rax is to hold off, and the anti-14 Hatchers wouldn't exist.
Here are a few things I agree with, Zergs shouldn't complain about the 2 rax. Its actually a really smart move by the terran, forces Lings, and since they don have speed they can safely retreat. If i was a terran player I'd probably do that everytime if I went up against a zerg, whether or not he went for a 14 hatch. its just a smart build, especially because most terrans expand behind it. No real arguments there.
I think the issue that most people are upset with is the scv all in where you bring 15 scvs with you. that aspect of the game appears to be the most difficult.
So heres what ive seen from games, 14 hatch vs 2 rax marine pressure = a micro battle and whoever comes out on top is in firm control of the game. 14 hatch vs 2 rax + scv all in = boring and stupid.
Btw, Im not aware of many anti-14 hatchers that are actually pros or aspiring pro gamers in this thread. Most of the anti-14 hatch people dont post with any substances. Kvz, a 2500 diamond just posted a pretty good take on 14 hatch vs no 14 hatch vs the 2 rax.
Here is one for reference, but please look for Kvz post as well.
On December 07 2010 09:29 TheButtonmen wrote: 2k Diamond Zerg here figured I'd toss in my 2 cents.
14 hatch vs not 14 hatch builds: You need to 14 hatch if you want to stand a chance because of the creep spread; any build where you don't get the creep spreed from the 14 hatch at the natural it's impossible to stop them from containing you with bunkers, secondly due to the fact that marines have no attack delay unlike zerglings you need to fight them on creep when using slow zerglings to stop the shoot n scoot from making your lings completely cost ineffective, you also need the creep spread to build forward spines so that you can survive a all in. Rain's play: He's a progamer he's payed to win not put on a show.
Balance issues: No numerical nerfs / buffs are needed (though the -5 seconds for bunkers on the PTR makes me leery) instead either add an attack delay to the marines or remove the attack delay from zerglings would go a long way towards solving this issue. Is 14 Hatch economic cheese: No as I previously mentioned 14 hatch is the safest zerg build possible.
Btw, just out of curiousity, what race do you play and how often do you go up against 2rax pressure as zerg? Im only a 700 diamond, so ive had great success holding off 2rax since I started 14 hatch, but at my level, im not claiming my experience is worth much.
I'm really not getting this Pool-first = Bunker contain argument. I'd like to see a game to see this idea in action and when the timing actually is, because there are probably things that could have been done to prevent Bunkers from getting up. i.e. The most common response is just good scouting and micro.
On December 07 2010 09:43 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work.
A) If you rush lings + ling speed your income is miles behind there and they simple don't push instead opting to take an expand thus leaving you behind and with a pile of useless lings (aka you need to bane bust which is a very risky move)
B) You have half the larva which means you can't make as many lings.
C) You dont have the creep spread by your ramp to help contest wall ins / contains.
You have an earlier queen than with a hatch first build, so you don't have half the larvae unless you put down a tumour first, and your lings should be out early enough to deal with an SCV trying to bunker.
If your late expanding you need* to creep tumor first rather then inject larva, having the creep is much more important then having 4-6 more lings.
*I'd love to hear some pros discussion regarding the merits of creep spread and the trade off in larva production betwen 2 hatch + creep tumor (14 Hatch) and 1 hatch** + inject (11 Pool) at stopping the early bunker pressure.
**The 2nd hatchery isn't active in time / spread enough creep to help with the inital push.
On December 07 2010 09:14 DooMDash wrote: As a Terran I can tell you that the match up is screwed up after mid-game in Zergs favor. Needs to be adjusted and the all-ins will go away. It has something to do with sling/bane/muta as a combo. I think T needs a more mobile way to deal with muta.
(2000 diamond for reference.)
not that i necessarily disagree with you but i really don't believe much is imbalanced at 2000 diamond. out of 95% games there is always a clear reason why i lost (always my mistake or my opponent out playing me in some aspect, whether that be macro, micro, etc.).
On December 07 2010 09:43 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work.
A) If you rush lings + ling speed your income is miles behind there and they simple don't push instead opting to take an expand thus leaving you behind and with a pile of useless lings (aka you need to bane bust which is a very risky move)
B) You have half the larva which means you can't make as many lings.
C) You dont have the creep spread by your ramp to help contest wall ins / contains.
You have an earlier queen than with a hatch first build, so you don't have half the larvae unless you put down a tumour first, and your lings should be out early enough to deal with an SCV trying to bunker.
If your late expanding you need* to creep tumor first rather then inject larva, having the creep is much more important then having 4-6 more lings.
*I'd love to hear some pros discussion regarding the merits of creep spread and the trade off in larva production betwen 2 hatch + creep tumor (14 Hatch) and 1 hatch** + inject (11 Pool) at stopping the early bunker pressure.
**The 2nd hatchery isn't active in time / spread enough creep to help with the inital push.
In a recent tutorial video from IdrA, he mentioned that he uses the initial energy on both queens to spread creep both at the natural and the space inbetween his main and his natural. Not sure if thats fast enough to stop bunker pressure talking about though.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Zergs need to stop their economic "Hatchery First" cheese, the expectation that you get to make more than 15 drones before getting allined is completely ludicrous in an economy based RTS.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
Rain didn't deserve to win. He really didn't. That said, it's not his fault.
Blizz has said they want cheeses to be as easy to defend as they are to do, and in the games Nestea play how he needed to(For the most part, he shoulda gotten more spines imo) to beat it. You can't realistically say "Oh, he should have pooled first!" or "Rain had to try harder in those builds!", since neither is true. Nestea undoubtedly played harder, and Hatch first is actually better against this kind of pressure.
It comes down to Blizz. Idk how they can fix this, but they need to.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
The fact that Korean ladder has been nothing but cheese versus Zergs (Watch Sen's or IdrA's streams) could have something to do with it. Moon has had almost no practice versus a Terran who plays straight up.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
Have you watched the games? It was not stellar play. Looking at his overall results on paper maybe he did ok but that's turning a blind eye to how he actually played.
On December 07 2010 09:02 chokke wrote: Why do none of these people throw up one, maybe 2 spinecrawlers at their main when their opponent is all-in? Instead of just throwing lings on the SCVs.
Well, that means you're sacrificing your natural hatchery. If you're saying they don't have it yet, then the zerg player is investing 300 minerals in static defense without an expansion to show for it, meaning the terran gets a free expansion and an easy win 5 minutes down the road.
Pulling all workers to the opponent's base to kill his stuff is not free.
In BW, a 12 Nex'ing Protoss would be fine if Terran decided to bunker rush and pull many SCVs to kill the natural nexus, because the cost of killing it was actually higher than the cost of planting it...
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote: So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax.
- 11 Overpool.
Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go.
- Zergling presence + runby
If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.)
- Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases
He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out.
On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax.
Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas.
If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup.
Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so.
On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:
On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win.
This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser.
People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing.
bring back drone range :p
Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda.
terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know
if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG
Excellent point! Zerg cannot afford to pump lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
I recommend Zerg solve this problem by not pumping lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
Zergs scout and adjust. A profound concept, I know.
what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
The build that jdseemoreglass floated goes 11 overlord pool 16 queen 18 hatchery. You can plant your hatch at a reasonable time.
I think 11 pool 18 hatch is undoubtedly something Ret & IdrA have probably not explored, but if those bunkers can go down before you can get enough lings out to prevent a bunker block it's probably worse than 14 pool. You might be able to get that hatch down at 16 plus have more lings earlier.
With 11 Overpool, your Zerglings should spawn at the same time as Terran's marines. I doubt he can reasonably bunker you in.
With 12 nex you were constantly pumping probes and could easily also break a bunker contain after losing your nat. More often than not also you weren't ahead, but even. Sometimes you were, depending on the amount of SCVs committed. It was highly dependent on that. Of course, in SC2 they bring a butt ton. The thing is, you abandon your nat --> you're still at a worker disadvantage because you were producing lings from that natural hat, not drones. You produce drones he'll walk into your base and roll you. Also, he can set up a costly bunker contain that you can't easily get out of (goon range upgraded > bunker range in BW), and which he could expand behind.
Not feasible at all, two completely different scenarios.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
Have you watched the games? It was not stellar play. Looking at his overall results on paper maybe he did ok but that's turning a blind eye to how he actually played.
allright, why don't you tell me, point by point, what exactly has made moon as crappy as you think he is.
I thought we all agreed that Moon didn't play as well as he could have. TBH, he's playing both WC3 and SC2 at the same time, splitting his schedule. Obviously, he's not gonna play up to his 100% potential. Let's talk about the things that happened in the game against Jinro. Trying to backstab Jinro through the middle with banelings, only to attack a couple tanks with 20+ banelings = not optimal. There were many mistakes during the game, but that huge blunder to 'a move' his banelings easily costed him the game.
On December 07 2010 08:02 Kvz wrote: Heh, I figured when blizzard said at blizzcon that marines are overtuned in the early game that people would begin to start using them en masse. It's not really surprising.
As a 2500 Z (I stopped laddering 2 weeks ago) its really frustrating when people keep saying 'just go one base' or "learn to prepare for it" because in all honesty even if you see it coming, the terran can choose not to attack and just CC and expand behind a bunker. What do you do with the 24 lings you made now lol?
Btw I have been experimenting with my practice partners going 14gas/14pool and the problem with this is that they terran can actually do a slow bunker push as you lack the zerglings early to really defend against it. I"m talking about a bunker to the far side of your natural to deny a natural and then continuously pushing to your ramp with it while blocking off their own base.
Hear hear! A well constructed point that explains exactly why 14 hatch is needed against 2rax pressure. Complete with detailed experience mixed in explaining why you hatch first versus this exact build.
These are the kind of posts that are needed in strategy threads and across teamliquid. No mindlessly copying pro's, just straight up honest experience explained and laid out on a silver plate for us to read.
I want to thank you for posting this and I feel we need to encourage people to post like this more.
Wow I just read this. Thank you for the kind words, and here's to hoping that someone finds a build that will effectively deal 2rax .
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Moon is still mostly playing WC3 till the end of the year and he just recently changed to zerg. Hardly showing what WC3 players can do when others have done better even in this GSL let alone winning dreamhack. Many top players are ex WC3 players and most of the top ones havent even switched over yet.
It also takes away credit from Jinro, ok Moon made some glaring mistakes but the victories were far from easy I am sure Jinro would attest to that.
On December 07 2010 03:19 ultramafia wrote: everytime i get really upset about cheesy games (especially this deep into gsl), i remember that these are the "preliminary qualifiers" for the real league. I also try to step back, calm down, and remember that this game is less than 6 months into its lifespan as a game/sport.
As i am certainly disappointed with some of the games, i am also highly disappointed with other sporting events when they become melodramatic(e.g. world cup finals this year). I don't feel bad for TSL.Rain. He had to choose whether he wanted to go for the best probability of winning the games vs nestea or if he wanted to build fans by bringing exciting games. He isn't stupid and he knows fans want to see exciting games not early rax all ins.
Maybe I am mistaken but none of his wins today seemed as if he had any back up plan. He says he "want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that." I'm not a professional player but thats not what i saw out of his games.
When was it your right to be upset in the first place? Do you pay for his meals? His house?
The reason why Terran is so strong early/early-mid game is because they don't have a late game really (except for BC). They can tech to and build any unit they want safely behind their wall-in, and neither Zerg nor Protoss will be able to break them. This makes it difficult for Blizzard to give Terran a strong late game simply because Terran easily reach the "late game" units during the mid game if they want to without any danger of dying, and can often opt for an early expansion rather safely as well. This forces Terrans late game to be weak, because if Terran's had strong late game units, they would just build them during the mid game.
On December 07 2010 10:22 CanucksJC wrote: I thought we all agreed that Moon didn't play as well as he could have. TBH, he's playing both WC3 and SC2 at the same time, splitting his schedule. Obviously, he's not gonna play up to his 100% potential. Let's talk about the things that happened in the game against Jinro. Trying to backstab Jinro through the middle with banelings, only to attack a couple tanks with 20+ banelings = not optimal. There were many mistakes during the game, but that huge blunder to 'a move' his banelings easily costed him the game.
you're confusing moon made mistakes with moon is horrible and jinro can't be used as an example of a successful macro terran. Would the game have been a one sided zerg rape had he not blow up those banelings on tanks? No. Take July vs Alive as another example. Alive had absolutely no plan past expanding once and still he almost got him with the final push. Can i use that as an example? Because clearly Alive was hanging in it against a zerg in a macro game, and had he implemented some sort of post natural plan he would have great chances to win in that game.
Everyone makes mistakes, but it doesnt mean that you can dismiss games just because they don't fit in with your point of view, otherwise we simply get a cycle of broken logic where t's can't hang with z in a macro game and every z who loses a macro game against terran is automatically bad.
The mule doesn't have to get "nerrfed" - isn't it possible that they could give Terrans an advatange similar to what the mule gives but also prevent early all ins from benefiting from that advantage? Maybe we could make the mule's mineral gain progressive as time goes on?
On December 07 2010 03:19 ultramafia wrote: everytime i get really upset about cheesy games (especially this deep into gsl), i remember that these are the "preliminary qualifiers" for the real league. I also try to step back, calm down, and remember that this game is less than 6 months into its lifespan as a game/sport.
As i am certainly disappointed with some of the games, i am also highly disappointed with other sporting events when they become melodramatic(e.g. world cup finals this year). I don't feel bad for TSL.Rain. He had to choose whether he wanted to go for the best probability of winning the games vs nestea or if he wanted to build fans by bringing exciting games. He isn't stupid and he knows fans want to see exciting games not early rax all ins.
Maybe I am mistaken but none of his wins today seemed as if he had any back up plan. He says he "want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that." I'm not a professional player but thats not what i saw out of his games.
When was it your right to be upset in the first place? Do you pay for his meals? His house?
Terran early game is good, zerg lategame is unbeatable, fans prefer watching lategames, so people assume the proper/best way to play is lategame? aka the best way to play is to let the zerg win... You play to win with what youve been given by the balance team, anything else is WWF wrestling. The fact that the terran who utilized his early game advantage (and avoided the impossible tvz lategame scenario) had to appologize for winning? wow...
The whole reason terran lategame blows are the nerfs to seigetanks and the discovery of magic box nullify thor's AA. Nerf terran early game and buff seige tanks/thor AA and suddenly you have a very balanced early/mid/lategame matchup
On December 07 2010 03:19 ultramafia wrote: everytime i get really upset about cheesy games (especially this deep into gsl), i remember that these are the "preliminary qualifiers" for the real league. I also try to step back, calm down, and remember that this game is less than 6 months into its lifespan as a game/sport.
As i am certainly disappointed with some of the games, i am also highly disappointed with other sporting events when they become melodramatic(e.g. world cup finals this year). I don't feel bad for TSL.Rain. He had to choose whether he wanted to go for the best probability of winning the games vs nestea or if he wanted to build fans by bringing exciting games. He isn't stupid and he knows fans want to see exciting games not early rax all ins.
Maybe I am mistaken but none of his wins today seemed as if he had any back up plan. He says he "want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that." I'm not a professional player but thats not what i saw out of his games.
When was it your right to be upset in the first place? Do you pay for his meals? His house?
Well, if he bought the premium package for GOM, he does help pay for those things.
The problem is they can all in with so many scv's and there economy remains unchanged...im sorry but that is ridiculous...Granted who are we to say he shouldnt do it, there is a lot of money on the line and we have seen other zergs deal with this and come out on top....But I do think it is something that needs to be addressed.
TvZ is just so boring and one dimensional. The all ins make me go and watch TV. It's just rinse and repeat with short games that end anticlimactically.
On December 07 2010 10:41 RiceMuncher wrote: terran all-in is not a auto win. Its only likely to be an auto win because Zerg's love to FE, before a pool.
a 13 pool, 13 extractor would hard counter any all=ins easy
"Oh, you didn't fast expand and you blindly made 20 lings. I guess I'll just bunker up at my natural and expand!"
On December 07 2010 09:01 Pondo wrote: I can't believe there are people in this thread actually arguing with Ret on how to play ZvT. I mean... seriously...
Talking about droning for 12 minutes and roflstomp T?
On December 07 2010 03:19 ultramafia wrote: everytime i get really upset about cheesy games (especially this deep into gsl), i remember that these are the "preliminary qualifiers" for the real league. I also try to step back, calm down, and remember that this game is less than 6 months into its lifespan as a game/sport.
As i am certainly disappointed with some of the games, i am also highly disappointed with other sporting events when they become melodramatic(e.g. world cup finals this year). I don't feel bad for TSL.Rain. He had to choose whether he wanted to go for the best probability of winning the games vs nestea or if he wanted to build fans by bringing exciting games. He isn't stupid and he knows fans want to see exciting games not early rax all ins.
Maybe I am mistaken but none of his wins today seemed as if he had any back up plan. He says he "want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that." I'm not a professional player but thats not what i saw out of his games.
When was it your right to be upset in the first place? Do you pay for his meals? His house?
Did you even read the entire post? Good god.
Why would i ever waste my time to read 30 pages of inane crying about someone playing to win?
On December 07 2010 10:41 RiceMuncher wrote: terran all-in is not a auto win. Its only likely to be an auto win because Zerg's love to FE, before a pool.
a 13 pool, 13 extractor would hard counter any all=ins easy
"Oh, you didn't fast expand and you blindly made 20 lings. I guess I'll just bunker up at my natural and expand!"
No your drone can scout and see what he does, then since Terran is going all-in, he wont have any gas. You can pretty much do anything with your tech from here
I feel like there's an expectation by the original poster for Zerg to fast expo. The fact is, regardless of how minor patch changes affect balance issues, that your Zerg player needs to take the risky (but effective) fast expansion for two barracks pressure to be effective. If Nestea would have decided to take fewer chances, he wouldn't have been prone to the power of marines/scvs.
On December 07 2010 10:41 RiceMuncher wrote: terran all-in is not a auto win. Its only likely to be an auto win because Zerg's love to FE, before a pool.
a 13 pool, 13 extractor would hard counter any all=ins easy
"Oh, you didn't fast expand and you blindly made 20 lings. I guess I'll just bunker up at my natural and expand!"
No your drone can scout and see what he does, then since Terran is going all-in, he wont have any gas. You can pretty much do anything with your tech from here
How are you going to tell a 2-rax scv rush, a 4-rax (with 2 hidden rax) scv timing rush, and a 2-rax expand apart? Scouting the blocked ramp isn't enough.
my opinion is that this is a big cash tournament and you have to do all you can (by the rules of course) to win it..
If you look at fruitdealer he also all inned and it backfired.. and he messed up when he caught the other guy proxied stargates..
I watched both games and i got disapointed but not because of cheese or all-ins.. fruitdealer and nestea played poorly and lost and that's what upsets me..
Rain in my opinion is a regular terran not a foxer and not a jinro.. nada and boxer are better but he might have won against those guys if they didn't prepare for this.. i mean nestea saw his GSL games and played him before on ladder.. how come he didn't prepare enought? why first hatch all the time? because he was confident and took a risk.. what happened??
he lost end of story!
I don't pay for GSL but if i did i wouldn't be angry at them.. this was entertaning but my guys lost
On December 07 2010 03:19 ultramafia wrote: everytime i get really upset about cheesy games (especially this deep into gsl), i remember that these are the "preliminary qualifiers" for the real league. I also try to step back, calm down, and remember that this game is less than 6 months into its lifespan as a game/sport.
As i am certainly disappointed with some of the games, i am also highly disappointed with other sporting events when they become melodramatic(e.g. world cup finals this year). I don't feel bad for TSL.Rain. He had to choose whether he wanted to go for the best probability of winning the games vs nestea or if he wanted to build fans by bringing exciting games. He isn't stupid and he knows fans want to see exciting games not early rax all ins.
Maybe I am mistaken but none of his wins today seemed as if he had any back up plan. He says he "want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that." I'm not a professional player but thats not what i saw out of his games.
When was it your right to be upset in the first place? Do you pay for his meals? His house?
Well, if he bought the premium package for GOM, he does help pay for those things.
No he doesn't. GOM doesn't pay its players. They pay if you win, which is what all these people are trying to do.
On December 07 2010 09:14 DooMDash wrote: As a Terran I can tell you that the match up is screwed up after mid-game in Zergs favor. Needs to be adjusted and the all-ins will go away. It has something to do with sling/bane/muta as a combo. I think T needs a more mobile way to deal with muta.
(2000 diamond for reference.)
This is kinda true. Massing missile turrets is so brood war. Vikings, Terran's air-to-air unit gets shit on by mutaslisks in groups :/.
Upgraded marines shit on Mutas but any decent Zerg can harass with mutas and have a group of marines running in circles without losing his muta ball. Thors own mutas but they are also one of the slowest combat units.
This is the question I have been wondering. Why don't I see mass turrets anymore? Is it because of the lack of mineral-only third base? Rain got raped hard after mutas are out because he has like 2 turrets in the main base.
imo good for him. He's showing its possible that a race besides Zerg can win a GSL! I see no problem with his playstyle, its aggressive and micro heavy. I remember when Boxer was popular on SC1 years ago and he used to do a marine / medic / tank / vulture timing attack every tvp and micro his heart out. People loved it! But now the game just evolved into a macro fest.
Anyway, when theres so much money to be won, why not do the strategies you are most comfortable doing? I know I would.
On December 07 2010 10:41 RiceMuncher wrote: terran all-in is not a auto win. Its only likely to be an auto win because Zerg's love to FE, before a pool.
a 13 pool, 13 extractor would hard counter any all=ins easy
"Oh, you didn't fast expand and you blindly made 20 lings. I guess I'll just bunker up at my natural and expand!"
No your drone can scout and see what he does, then since Terran is going all-in, he wont have any gas. You can pretty much do anything with your tech from here
Yes you can drone scout and see that he has no gas, but that's not where the difficulty lies. As soon as your drone leaves/dies, that's when the guessing game begins. Is he going to keep making marines? Is he switching to full econ mode with a cc behind his wall? Is he going completely all-in and doing 4 rax no gas? There's no way to tell, and underproducing or overproducing an army can leave you far behind or lose you the game.
One thing Artosis has been urging the players to do is to blindly get a banelings nest, which I haven't seen many of them do. This could be the answer, although the fact that GSL zergs rarely do this makes me question its viability.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
Exactly, the players don't plan their builds according to what the viewers want to see, they do it in order to win. If you are not happy by their performance, then don't pay for the ticket.
As Herman Edwards says, "You play to win the game!"
Rain played to win the game. He won. Now he's in the Ro8 with a greater payday opportunity. It's not a "beauty pageant" with the "most beautiful" player being able to advance. That's not how it works. There's a reason why there's qualifiers and not automatic seed-ins. People should work their way in. If this strategy is how BitByBit and Rain do it, then by all means let them do it. It is primarily the opponent's responsibility to be prepared for such strategies. You don't go crying, "THIS STRATEGY IMBA" when you know your opponent is a notorious all-in player and you were playing for the late macro game (I am not implying that Nestea knew or said this, just stating this as a general common sense fact).
terran is the best at macro, cheese, strategial, tactically, micro in SC2, they dont have to sacrifise anything to acomplish something, Z have to stop doing drones, P hace to stop doing Probes i dont understand why blizzard makes terran that good
Blind baneling nest will be not be a good enough counter. The marine rush can come before your first zerglings are out. With a small enough number of banelings marines will just snipe them off. By the time you have banes down he'll likely have bunkers already. I hope every terran cashes in on this because I hate it when something imba is used once every 5-10 games and suddenly people don't think it's imba anymore. It's not how often it's used that matters, it's how effective it is. No strat should be so effective that you can consider it a sure win backup plan when it's 2:2 and you don't care how you win.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
I don't care what his rating is. You can't deny that his performance against Jinro was in anyway representative of the right way to play Zerg. He got scared of 1 turret as if it has splash damage for god's sake. Not to mention running bling into tank line. Why don't you make a poll and see how many agree with you that Moon was a player of Jinro's caliber? Better yet go ask Idra and see what he thinks of Moon. He was no doubt a great chaos player but he has not training full time for SC2 I heard.
Everyone is quoting Idra and Ret as if God has spoken and that 14 Hatch is the best build. That's coming from two of the greediest macro zergs around, so it's not surprising.
I don't hear anyone quoting Artosis, who is a little more balanced, when he says that 14 hatch is too risky and that the safer build is gas first for quick speedlings or, if you do go 14 hatch, blind counter with a baneling nest or 2 spine crawlers.
On December 07 2010 03:19 ultramafia wrote: everytime i get really upset about cheesy games (especially this deep into gsl), i remember that these are the "preliminary qualifiers" for the real league. I also try to step back, calm down, and remember that this game is less than 6 months into its lifespan as a game/sport.
As i am certainly disappointed with some of the games, i am also highly disappointed with other sporting events when they become melodramatic(e.g. world cup finals this year). I don't feel bad for TSL.Rain. He had to choose whether he wanted to go for the best probability of winning the games vs nestea or if he wanted to build fans by bringing exciting games. He isn't stupid and he knows fans want to see exciting games not early rax all ins.
Maybe I am mistaken but none of his wins today seemed as if he had any back up plan. He says he "want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that." I'm not a professional player but thats not what i saw out of his games.
When was it your right to be upset in the first place? Do you pay for his meals? His house?
Well, if he bought the premium package for GOM, he does help pay for those things.
No he doesn't. GOM doesn't pay its players. They pay if you win, which is what all these people are trying to do.
And TSLRain is guaranteed to be paid at least 10,000,000 Won (roughly $9000) for his performance in this GSL, more if he advances further. Maybe I don't understand your point, do you care to elaborate?
1. NesTea was capable of holding off the all-ins, he failed to do so. This is not Rain's fault.
2. NesTea was not capable of holding off the all-ins because of imbalance. This is also not Rain's fault.
I personally believe it's about 10% #1 and 90% #2 since it is much harder to defend these attacks then to execute them, and even if you defend them successfully, if they killed enough drones, you can still lose because the sheer power of MULEs allows any T player to trade workers and still come out ahead.
Either way, not Rain's fault, not his problem. Hate his playstyle, hate the game, hate Blizzard, but Rain has done nothing wrong.
Blame blizzard on the maps and the strength of all-ins NOT the players... Anyway both Nestea and Fruitdealer played poorly imo, they weren't up too their usual standards.
On December 07 2010 10:59 out4blood wrote: Everyone is quoting Idra and Ret as if God has spoken and that 14 Hatch is the best build. That's coming from two of the greediest macro zergs around, so it's not surprising.
I don't hear anyone quoting Artosis, who is a little more balanced, when he says that 14 hatch is too risky and that the safer build is gas first for quick speedlings or, if you do go 14 hatch, blind counter with a baneling nest or 2 spine crawlers.
i think that could help a lot, with this kind of aggresive terrans, but many playes like idra, ret, dont like to change to much their way of play. i think, Z should just as he throws down the 14hatch but he should put the roach warren just in case maybe i will sacrifise some drones, i think its safe enough.
everyone should be doing everything they can to win, short of cheating. timings, harass, all ins, cheese, what have you.
entertainment? blame nestea for not defending spectacularly.
people who complain about cheese are always the ones who cant defend against it. you will get punished for being either ignorant or arrogant in your expectations of what the opponent can and will do.
On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity.
Yes i totaly agree. Im sorry but this is a job to them. If i could cannon rush my opponents and win GSL 3 I would not even bother to apologize. Its simple Play to Win... Thats like going to your job, and not doing everything in your power to get a promotion. Its life its their income.. Do what you gotta do.
Maybee it is a balance issue, with FE are supposed to be risky but in the same sense, if your Z v T u have to play in one way... It seems to me like balance is fine its just that 2 of the races posses lower options compared to terran.
On December 07 2010 10:59 out4blood wrote: Everyone is quoting Idra and Ret as if God has spoken and that 14 Hatch is the best build. That's coming from two of the greediest macro zergs around, so it's not surprising.
I don't hear anyone quoting Artosis, who is a little more balanced, when he says that 14 hatch is too risky and that the safer build is gas first for quick speedlings or, if you do go 14 hatch, blind counter with a baneling nest or 2 spine crawlers.
14 Hatch being the best build has nothing to do with being greedy or anything. It is simply the best response to the 2 rax build...
And you don't have time to build a Baneling Nest. Your Spawning Pool just finished >.>
On December 07 2010 10:59 out4blood wrote: Everyone is quoting Idra and Ret as if God has spoken and that 14 Hatch is the best build. That's coming from two of the greediest macro zergs around, so it's not surprising.
I don't hear anyone quoting Artosis, who is a little more balanced, when he says that 14 hatch is too risky and that the safer build is gas first for quick speedlings or, if you do go 14 hatch, blind counter with a baneling nest or 2 spine crawlers.
14 Hatch being the best build has nothing to do with being greedy or anything. It is simply the best response to the 2 rax build...
And you don't have time to build a Baneling Nest. Your Spawning Pool just finished >.>
O.o I'm confused you just said 14 hatch is the direct counter to the 2 rax, when the reason all the terran's are 2 raxing now to begin with is because zerg's 14 hatch. It seems that the opposite is true.
On December 07 2010 10:59 out4blood wrote: Everyone is quoting Idra and Ret as if God has spoken and that 14 Hatch is the best build. That's coming from two of the greediest macro zergs around, so it's not surprising.
I don't hear anyone quoting Artosis, who is a little more balanced, when he says that 14 hatch is too risky and that the safer build is gas first for quick speedlings or, if you do go 14 hatch, blind counter with a baneling nest or 2 spine crawlers.
14 Hatch being the best build has nothing to do with being greedy or anything. It is simply the best response to the 2 rax build...
And you don't have time to build a Baneling Nest. Your Spawning Pool just finished >.>
All fast expand builds (which obviously include 14-hatch) are greedy, and it's sensible that they can be crushed with early pressure. The game should be so.
Silly zergs thought they could FE safely thanks to reaper nerfs... well, hate to tell you, but it's always a calculated risk. I don't deny that zerg needs to expand quickly - they should just be aware of what could happen to them in close positions if they do so.
If your playing Ladder or vs friends, by all means do passive strategies that allow you to practiice your mid-late game and macro... Test new ideas, ect.
When your playing for thousands of dollars and your future career and you play for a team with coaches and sponsors. Win the game. I dont care if you gotta wear womens clothing while attacking with 6lings and 6 drones while flashing a laser pointer in the opponents eyes... Win the game.
Its Nesteas fault.. Zerg can beat those things for loss in economy. He got greedy.
On December 07 2010 10:59 out4blood wrote: Everyone is quoting Idra and Ret as if God has spoken and that 14 Hatch is the best build. That's coming from two of the greediest macro zergs around, so it's not surprising.
I don't hear anyone quoting Artosis, who is a little more balanced, when he says that 14 hatch is too risky and that the safer build is gas first for quick speedlings or, if you do go 14 hatch, blind counter with a baneling nest or 2 spine crawlers.
14 Hatch being the best build has nothing to do with being greedy or anything. It is simply the best response to the 2 rax build...
And you don't have time to build a Baneling Nest. Your Spawning Pool just finished >.>
The baneling nest is the immediate follow up after defending with 2 spines.
On December 07 2010 11:10 kawatan wrote: no need to apologize
everyone should be doing everything they can to win, short of cheating. timings, harass, all ins, cheese, what have you.
entertainment? blame nestea for not defending spectacularly.
people who complain about cheese are always the ones who cant defend against it. you will get punished for being either ignorant or arrogant in your expectations of what the opponent can and will do.
I do agree there's no need to apologize since the game is what makes this bullshit possible - but it really REALLY is bullshit if an all-in, which even a brainless friggin' zombie monkey could pull off, crushes really talented players at over 50% win percentage. This clearly has everything to do with maps with short rush distance as someone mentioned earlier on. Thus the map pool really needs to be changed drastically or at least give the players veto rights to avoid this bullshit in high profile tournaments.
And before someone starts flaming me on the 14 hatch business, just try to defend that as zerg against an opponent that has enough brains NOT to pull that all-in if he scouts you sitting on 1 base with a fast roach warren (on steppes or meta close position for example)... I doubt you will get over 50% success rate what ever you do, and still your opponent needs no real skill to pull those wins off of you. Does it feel fair?
Even a later hatch like 14 pool 21 hatch or something similar is not an option.. when your opponent sees the hatch go down at 21 food, he has an army that will crush yours and at least kill off the hatch and there just is nothing you can do about it with 1 base production, since you can't even place spines next to your hatch before it finishes (maybe creep spawn before hatch finishes would help this?). It's either fast hatch or 1 base all-in for zerg, and considering terrans always wall in, the correct choice here is almost always a fast hatch.
Zergs shoudl just two hatch in base to start off. It's actually cheaper than two spine crawlers, allows you to macro (30 workers on minerals), doesn't get taken out easily by a single rush.
If a strategy can consistently (or even not consistently) allow you to win, then I see no point in not using it. With all the recent nerfs to Terran and with zerg late game being so strong I can easily see why 2 and 4 rax all ins would be so common. This reminds me of MMA where some fans will complain because the fighters aren't "putting on a good show" and aren't either going all out at eachother/boxing toe-to-toe.
On December 07 2010 10:59 out4blood wrote: Everyone is quoting Idra and Ret as if God has spoken and that 14 Hatch is the best build. That's coming from two of the greediest macro zergs around, so it's not surprising.
I don't hear anyone quoting Artosis, who is a little more balanced, when he says that 14 hatch is too risky and that the safer build is gas first for quick speedlings or, if you do go 14 hatch, blind counter with a baneling nest or 2 spine crawlers.
14 Hatch being the best build has nothing to do with being greedy or anything. It is simply the best response to the 2 rax build...
And you don't have time to build a Baneling Nest. Your Spawning Pool just finished >.>
All fast expand builds (which obviously include 14-hatch) are greedy, and it's sensible that they can be crushed with early pressure. The game should be so.
Silly zergs thought they could FE safely thanks to reaper nerfs... well, hate to tell you, but it's always a calculated risk. I don't deny that zerg needs to expand quickly - they should just be aware of what could happen to them in close positions if they do so.
Sums it up for me. If hatch first would be free of risk it would be bad design.
You play to win and if the opponent opens with a greedy economic build then by all means punish him. Thing is, Zerg are now so used to heavy economy play (that leads to a crushing advantage late game) that they think getting on 10x bases with 100x drones is how a Zerg game has to look like.
Most of the time Terran will put heavy pressure and even all ins because current Terran late game is weak, both against Zerg and Protoss. It is as simple as that.
meh if they are angry at Rain for not going macro game, then i fully expect the korean netizen to bash on Fruitdealer as well for doing all those one base plays.
I understand the disappointment about watching boring repetitive all in games but i don't understand the double standard.
(or maybe they did bash fruitdealer equally hard?) i doubt it though.
Rain deserved the win hands down, played to his advantage punishing a greedy zerg, its nesteas fault for doing the same thing after losing to a marine rush twice before. its the meta game of Z dominating T in a macro game, and T more likely to win if they just all-in. Blame blizzards balance more then anything, rain did nothing but play to win, as he should have.
Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
Rain deserves no hate at all for how he played. It's not hi's job to entertain the viewers. He is there to win. If Nestea can't defend the rush then too bad for him. Rain isn't going to go to late-game and potentially lose so people don't complain.
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
On December 07 2010 11:47 LeetGoose wrote: Rain deserves no hate at all for how he played. It's not hi's job to entertain the viewers. He is there to win. If Nestea can't defend the rush then too bad for him. Rain isn't going to go to late-game and potentially lose so people don't complain.
I agree with you 100%. Why wouldn't you use every advantage you have to defeat your opponent, especially when there's money on the line. It's their job to win people.
On December 07 2010 10:59 out4blood wrote: Everyone is quoting Idra and Ret as if God has spoken and that 14 Hatch is the best build. That's coming from two of the greediest macro zergs around, so it's not surprising.
I don't hear anyone quoting Artosis, who is a little more balanced, when he says that 14 hatch is too risky and that the safer build is gas first for quick speedlings or, if you do go 14 hatch, blind counter with a baneling nest or 2 spine crawlers.
14 Hatch being the best build has nothing to do with being greedy or anything. It is simply the best response to the 2 rax build...
And you don't have time to build a Baneling Nest. Your Spawning Pool just finished >.>
O.o I'm confused you just said 14 hatch is the direct counter to the 2 rax, when the reason all the terran's are 2 raxing now to begin with is because zerg's 14 hatch. It seems that the opposite is true.
No it isn't. Terrans will 2rax before you even go 14hatch, and still would go 2rax if Zergs weren't going 14hatch. 2rax opening is just overall a solid pressure build no matter the opponent opening.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
I don't care what his rating is. You can't deny that his performance against Jinro was in anyway representative of the right way to play Zerg. He got scared of 1 turret as if it has splash damage for god's sake. Not to mention running bling into tank line. Why don't you make a poll and see how many agree with you that Moon was a player of Jinro's caliber? Better yet go ask Idra and see what he thinks of Moon. He was no doubt a great chaos player but he has not training full time for SC2 I heard.
I dont care if you don't care what his rating is. His rating speaks a ton more about the games then opinions of some platinum players who barely understand the game themselves. Same people who bash Moon for his performance against Jinro praised him for his games against butterflyeffect just a week before that when in reality he has improved a ton inbetween these games. If you are really as objective as you want to seem- look at Clide vs leenock series where clide confidently goes toe to toe with a macro zerg.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
I don't care what his rating is. You can't deny that his performance against Jinro was in anyway representative of the right way to play Zerg. He got scared of 1 turret as if it has splash damage for god's sake. Not to mention running bling into tank line. Why don't you make a poll and see how many agree with you that Moon was a player of Jinro's caliber? Better yet go ask Idra and see what he thinks of Moon. He was no doubt a great chaos player but he has not training full time for SC2 I heard.
I dont care if you don't care what his rating is. His rating speaks a ton more about the games then opinions of some platinum players who barely understand the game themselves. Same people who bash Moon for his performance against Jinro praised him for his games against butterflyeffect just a week before that when in reality he has improved a ton inbetween these games. If you are really as objective as you want to seem- look at Clide vs leenock series where clide confidently goes toe to toe with a macro zerg.
Hardly. You think after playing so much in general, out of nowhere he's going to experience a substantial improvement in performance? No way. Moon played poorly in both series, he's just not a representative of the top Zergs at the moment or what they are capable of in any way.
Concerning Clide vs Leenock, personally I even felt Clide could have played it quite better and even won the game. He could have utilized drops much better, and left a siege tank or so behind to take out expos like players would always do in BW at expansions.
"look at Clide vs leenock series where clide confidently goes toe to toe with a macro zerg. "
...and got knocked out in ro64, whereas his teammate Rain is in the semi's taking out last years winner!
Don't you guys think this all-in will exist for as long as it gives wins? Zergs were whining because they were getting punished early in the beginning of release, then patches happened and zergs started winning everything, now they are being punished early again and they want more patches!
He played to win within legitimate means, thats all that matters in sports.
In a tournament setting it doesn't matter who's the known better player, what matters is who wins the match up and players should utilize everything in their arsenal to make that happen.
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
Problem is, if you've ever followed an RTS from the beginning, you know that the not only do top players of the beginning often don't end up the top players, build orders and strategies will evolve, refine, and change as game goes on despite what top players originally thought (and i mean without influence from the patches and the like)
Players can be top players for reasons other than their strategical prowess or inventive build orders. There are so many various skills that come into play in Starcraft, that just because someone wins a lot right now does not mean they are "doing it right" when it comes to their build orders. Indeed, a great deal of top players get their build orders and strategies from the general community, and execute them better than the average player.
Note that I'm not saying anything conclusive about Idra or Ret or their opinion, but I just don't like the attitude that "so and so said so so thats that" repeated by forum drones because it kinda closes off discussion and hinders innovation. The entire community should be finding counters to popular strats, not leaving it up to a small portion of players to tell them how their games should go in a new game that's dealing with a newly popular strategy
Nestea got complacent and kept being greedy. If zerg decides to go hatch first to get a good economy, terran is in every right to exploit that. Nestea lost because Rain was better. Maybe he would have won if he went to mid late game, but if you don't know how to make dough, you ain't gonna be making bread.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
I don't care what his rating is. You can't deny that his performance against Jinro was in anyway representative of the right way to play Zerg. He got scared of 1 turret as if it has splash damage for god's sake. Not to mention running bling into tank line. Why don't you make a poll and see how many agree with you that Moon was a player of Jinro's caliber? Better yet go ask Idra and see what he thinks of Moon. He was no doubt a great chaos player but he has not training full time for SC2 I heard.
I dont care if you don't care what his rating is. His rating speaks a ton more about the games then opinions of some platinum players who barely understand the game themselves. Same people who bash Moon for his performance against Jinro praised him for his games against butterflyeffect just a week before that when in reality he has improved a ton inbetween these games. If you are really as objective as you want to seem- look at Clide vs leenock series where clide confidently goes toe to toe with a macro zerg.
Hardly. You think after playing so much in general, out of nowhere he's going to experience a substantial improvement in performance? No way. Moon played poorly in both series, he's just not a representative of the top Zergs at the moment or what they are capable of in any way.
who what where are those phantom zerg heroes. I am not saying that he is a zerg bonjwa but to dismiss him in his entirety is nonsense. And it is sorta hard to compare his skill level with other zerg's simply because we haven't really seen much quality zergs against quality terrans that didnt end up in an early defeat.
Concerning Clide vs Leenock, personally I even felt Clide could have played it quite better and even won the game. He could have utilized drops much better, and left a siege tank or so behind to take out expos like players would always do in BW at expansions.
well good, and i regret saying it because forum trolls don't leave objectivity unpunished, but Leenock could probably have won JB game if he played slightly better. Point is there is absolutely no evidence that terran can't hang with zerg in a macro game, because the games we have available at hand that feature two top players clearly display that both race's macro capabilities are close to even and if the losing player made slight improvements to his game the outcome could have changed.
Don't you guys think this all-in will exist for as long as it gives wins? Zergs were whining because they were getting punished early in the beginning of release, then patches happened and zergs started winning everything, now they are being punished early again and they want more patches!
Terran has never stopped dominating since the release(well, they have been dominating since phase 2 tbh). And GSL1 was won by a zerg pre-patch.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
I don't care what his rating is. You can't deny that his performance against Jinro was in anyway representative of the right way to play Zerg. He got scared of 1 turret as if it has splash damage for god's sake. Not to mention running bling into tank line. Why don't you make a poll and see how many agree with you that Moon was a player of Jinro's caliber? Better yet go ask Idra and see what he thinks of Moon. He was no doubt a great chaos player but he has not training full time for SC2 I heard.
I dont care if you don't care what his rating is. His rating speaks a ton more about the games then opinions of some platinum players who barely understand the game themselves. Same people who bash Moon for his performance against Jinro praised him for his games against butterflyeffect just a week before that when in reality he has improved a ton inbetween these games. If you are really as objective as you want to seem- look at Clide vs leenock series where clide confidently goes toe to toe with a macro zerg.
How exactly does his rating speaks a ton about the game? Please elaborate. Nobody in their right mind bashing players for losing. Many people, myself included. merely pointed out the fact that you cannot use Jinro vs. Moon to say that Jinro's startegy is the new revolution of Terran macro play. The reason is because it has not been tested against the best Zerg yet. Every new strat needs time to be tested and people are just jumping the gun on this one out of their Zerg bias. I am disappointed that we won't get to see Jinro's TvZ until the next season or after GSL but until then people need to stop citing that game as the proof of whatever it is they want to believe. The sample size was just too small.
Clide won a macro game on the most imba TvZ map ever. I think Terran went something like 5-0 on Jungle Basin until the round of 16 or 32 not sure about that one. Did you really think that Moon's play was top notch for a Zerg player in that series? Please give me an answer on that one.
I don't need to put on a fake front of being objective so please don't make it sound like I am pretending to be objective. It adds nothing to the discussion and the weight of your argument.
On December 07 2010 03:19 ultramafia wrote: everytime i get really upset about cheesy games (especially this deep into gsl), i remember that these are the "preliminary qualifiers" for the real league. I also try to step back, calm down, and remember that this game is less than 6 months into its lifespan as a game/sport.
As i am certainly disappointed with some of the games, i am also highly disappointed with other sporting events when they become melodramatic(e.g. world cup finals this year). I don't feel bad for TSL.Rain. He had to choose whether he wanted to go for the best probability of winning the games vs nestea or if he wanted to build fans by bringing exciting games. He isn't stupid and he knows fans want to see exciting games not early rax all ins.
Maybe I am mistaken but none of his wins today seemed as if he had any back up plan. He says he "want to go for early all-ins and had other plans deceiving the opponent by showing early pushes. But he won by early all-ins and apologized for that." I'm not a professional player but thats not what i saw out of his games.
When was it your right to be upset in the first place? Do you pay for his meals? His house?
I don't have a right to be upset that a game i paid to watch was boring to me? You don't get upset if you get really excited for a movie and then the movie sucks? I'm not even blaming it on anything i'm just saying I prefer longer more diverse games. You don't have to be upset and i certainly don't want any player to apologize. He did what he did to win and I respect that but he is not winning any fans by playing games like this and then apologizing for it after.
This is a preliminary tournament and i am sure as code s rain will have plenty of chances to win money. Maybe building a fan base with exciting play and maybe upsetting a giant favorite by playing an interesting game will bring massive amounts of fans. I believe that would ultimately favor his career even further. Again just my opinion though. That word 'opinion' seems to have little meaning on message boards.
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
I don't care what his rating is. You can't deny that his performance against Jinro was in anyway representative of the right way to play Zerg. He got scared of 1 turret as if it has splash damage for god's sake. Not to mention running bling into tank line. Why don't you make a poll and see how many agree with you that Moon was a player of Jinro's caliber? Better yet go ask Idra and see what he thinks of Moon. He was no doubt a great chaos player but he has not training full time for SC2 I heard.
I dont care if you don't care what his rating is. His rating speaks a ton more about the games then opinions of some platinum players who barely understand the game themselves. Same people who bash Moon for his performance against Jinro praised him for his games against butterflyeffect just a week before that when in reality he has improved a ton inbetween these games. If you are really as objective as you want to seem- look at Clide vs leenock series where clide confidently goes toe to toe with a macro zerg.
How exactly does his rating speaks a ton about the game? Please elaborate. Nobody in their right mind bashing players for losing. Many people, myself included. merely pointed out the fact that you cannot use Jinro vs. Moon to say that Jinro's startegy is the new revolution of Terran macro play. The reason is because it has not been tested against the best Zerg yet. Every new strat needs time to be tested and people are just jumping the gun on this one out of their Zerg bias. I am disappointed that we won't get to see Jinro's TvZ until the next season or after GSL but until then people need to stop citing that game as the proof of whatever it is they want to believe. The sample size was just too small.
Clide won a macro game on the most imba TvZ map ever. I think Terran went something like 5-0 on Jungle Basin until the round of 16 or 32 not sure about that one. Did you really think that Moon's play was top notch for a Zerg player in that series? Please give me an answer on that one.
I don't need to put on a fake front of being objective so please don't make it sound like I am pretending to be objective. It adds nothing to the discussion and the weight of your argument.
Clide also almost won on what many consider to be the most zerg favored map. Since you seem like a reasonable man, ill just sum up my point- we don't know. And we won't know for the longest time, simply because terrans limit themselves to one or two base plays and terran strategical development stagnates. Maybe lategame zerg does need a nerf. But Blizzard stalling terran early game nerfs, and people on forums actually supporting that delay just slows down teh development of the game. The later we'll get terran nerfs the later we can approach fixing late game zerg if so needed be.
Is two hatch off of one base play not viable on a map like steppes? Seems like having a hatch at the top of the ramp would help zerg defend so much easier. If you are guaranteed to lose your expo to a marine scv rush it just seems more logical to atleast try some sort of 2hatch one base play.
Coming from a Z player, Rain has absolutely nothing to apologize for. Zergs are getting greedy with hatch first openings and getting punished for it. Like 14 Hatch on Steppes of War? That is never, ever, going to beat any type of 2 rax. Zergs need to learn to adapt as Artosis has been saying. I may not be the best player (2100 D), but I don't have to be to see that lots of Zergs have been losing by going 14 hatch. In ZvZ it would be like saying that going 14gas, pool, speedling into a banelings against 14 hatch is cheesy. Its not. It is a simple build order win.
All that, are just observations from games lost and won. I think Z should start doing openings like 14 pool 16 hatch, getting gas for speed and leaving the option to tech to banelings fast open. I have been experimenting with gasing to 100, getting speed, gasing to 50 then pulling drones off gas. If I discover its marine scv all in, then I plop a bnest down and mine gas. If not, then I just do whatever I need to.
Okay I have to say this since I've heard a lot of you cry like sissies about the freakin $20 dollar that you paid for this GSL.
IT IS NOT A FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS YOU PAID. SHUT UP AND JUST WATCH WHAT YOU GET IN YOUR BASEMENT AND EAT YOUR NAACHOS IF THE $20 wasn't the entirety of your year's budget.
OP are you dumb! - are you saying that you demand non cheesy play if you pay for the games lol! Rain should not apologize, he exploited Nestea's weakness. Nestea might be godlike mid/late game but he lost where it mattered. So he is out.
Stop the QQ!
and seriously GSL does not really need your money. Lol you idiots think that your money runs their show. Just don't pay if you don't like it. It is that simple.
It is surprising how entitled, full of themselves, and blinded people can get as a group.
On December 07 2010 12:26 Trajan98 wrote: Is two hatch off of one base play not viable on a map like steppes? Seems like having a hatch at the top of the ramp would help zerg defend so much easier. If you are guaranteed to lose your expo to a marine scv rush it just seems more logical to atleast try some sort of 2hatch one base play.
It is viable to an extent.
Fruit Dealer actually did it in his game on steppes and MadFrog does second hatch in base plays all the time, even when hes not walled in
Not to mention to those that think their $20 is wasted, imagine this. Wouldn't it be amazing for Z to hold that off? Wouldn't it really cool to see a good Zerg have the right build order, the right micro to beat 2 rax all in? That was part of the reason that Season 2 finals game 7 was cool (although short). Zergs need to adapt and stop doing 14 hatch all the time. It is for example when Protoss goes forge nexus. If they did that every time they would lose a large amount of games. It only works if you only do it sometimes not always.
How can people take eSports seriously if this is really causing such a commotion? Did the Browns apologize for upsetting the Patriots? This thread shouldn't have 34 pages worth of responses and anyone who thinks Rain should apologize is truly pathetic.
A player's responsibility isn't too ensure that the games they play in are entertaining, their primary responsibility is to win. You can be disappointed that a series was short and did not involve a great deal of variety but you cannot blame the players with roughly 8k on the line at that point.
I'm glad to see so many people take the side of the player, he's just doing his damn job lol. He's no obliged to show off or entertain ( Although this would be cool ) it's better to see him play his hardest and smartest.
He knew he could not face Nestea's macro so decided to test out his micro and it went to his favour. Nestea did make some slip ups in those moments, and should've been more prepared tbh.
TSL_Rain just showed that he was a gamer who could play the game.
I agree with everyone saying that he shouldn't be focused on putting on a show as opposed to trying to win. If he feels he can win with cheese, that's legit. I ALSO agree with the fact that if someone like Nestea KNOWS the cheese is coming and still cannot defeat it with adequate preparation, that may be a note towards balance (I'm a T player myself, but I would perhaps consider maybe a MULE mining nerf or something to at least increase the risk towards an all-in being a real all-in).
On December 07 2010 03:16 Blobskillz wrote: really guys this is not the fault of the players.
The gamestrategies didnt settle down yet, so obviously a lot of rushes and that sort of stuff will work really well. That's how the game works. And really you cant blame both of them seeing this many rushes now wil lresult in the game changing towards another playstyle by the Zergs to counter it and so on. So really guys enjoy the show and dont hate on people that do what works.
agreed. it's understandable that rain's getting flamed for his play... but i say it's partially on the current 'balance'/metagame of the game. everyone knows that zerg's gonna be extremely hard to beat during late game, and i terran has to hurt zerg pretty hard during the early-mid game (or all-in)/get an econ advantage. so, rain did exactly what he should have been doing to win. cheesing/all-inning are good skills to have when executed properly at the right times, and i would say that rain did that. it's not like he all-inned every game, did he?
The bottom line is Rain intended to pressure NestTea early and trick him into making too many zerglings. Nobody really disputes this, it's standard practice against a hatch first zerg. The problem was Rain realized he was actually winning with this strat, and just finished him off. Game 4 and 5 were carbon copies of game 2 in build orders, frankly Nesttea made some blunders in getting extra drones instead of zerglings. Watch the VOD, he had 200 minerals before he planted his first spine crawler. He could have actually made two. He simply didn't want to.
Same thing happened to Idra on Blistering sands. He sees his opponent is building up an attack army around the 4minute mark and what does he do? He builds 9 drones and double expands to 4 bases. Then 30 seconds later, he builds banelings. He almost holds it off.
Anyone can double expand command centers, but they have no right to complain when mass zerglings destroy their base. But somehow Zerg do when they drone up while Terran attacks lol.
Lastly, by this standard Fruitdealer should apologize and hand back his trophy for going 6pool against OGSInca.
People who complain about marine scv all-ins have no right to unless they were against 6pool. Didn't hear a peep from most of you, guess why. It's because Zerg only considers it unfair if Terran cheeses lol.
I'm a random player for the record, but it's just funny to see how biased people are.
I don't know how many people realise this, but staying on one base isn't necessarily the best situation either. Sure, it's safer, but what happens after that? You get bunkered in and are forced to one base as a zerg, which means that a) you end up ridiculously behind against an equal one base terran (or even a two base terran who has expanded) or b) you're forced to all in roaches, banelings or whatever. Either way the situation is just as dire if not worse. The main point of putting the hatch up early, is to allow for the extra production that sitting on one base will simply not allow. Furthermore, if you can hold off the initial push, sitting on two base will leave you in a much better economic standpoint compared to holding it off on one base.
Idra and ret stated somewhere that sitting on one base didn't yield enough larva to defend against this kind of scv/marine rush, which is why the hatch first is necessary. So please people, don't say 15 hatch is "risky', it's the best way to deal with this kind of rush, (for macro style zergs, anyway)
I don't blame Rain personally for what he did. There is a huge amount of prize money on the line. However, it's getting tedious and boring when weaker players, who play off 1 base 90% of the time, are knocking skilled players out of GSL.
Matter of fact, he did it twice in the same Bo5. I don't see why cheesing is a bad thing even deep in the leagues.
Does Jaedong have a shot at winning a longer game?
Exactly.
Rain has absolutely no chance of winning a game vs NesTea unless he abuses ugly early game all-in mechanics.
Then it sounds like he'd be a damn idiot if he didn't cheese then. So much of this is spoiled kids ranting. Maps play a part in it, I agree, but so much of this is people ranting and raving that the matches don't play out exactly how they want them to. I'm with Chill on this one, let things develop organically, in a highly competitive and unrestrained environment, and talk to me in a year. I'd bet close to a GSL prizepool the styles of gameplay will have shifted a hundred times over by then.
On December 07 2010 13:21 rarin wrote:I don't know how many people realise this, but staying on one base isn't necessarily the best situation either.
Nobody said one base. It's called pool first then hatch. July Zerg has no trouble going pool hatch against Terran. Neither did NestTea season 2. He got greedy this season, thinking his micro alone will let him get a free FE. Turns out, it's not free.
Idra and ret didn't say that, they said that hatch first is better because with pool first there are other dangers. That was before these games however.
Some people must not understand basic zerg build orders at all if they think your choice is between hatch first or 1base. I guess you're so used to getting free bases or 1base muta that you forgot there's such a thing as pool first then hatch. Again, plenty of pro zerg know this even NestTea. He just chose not to this series.
On December 07 2010 13:21 rarin wrote: I don't know how many people realise this, but staying on one base isn't necessarily the best situation either. Sure, it's safer, but what happens after that? You get bunkered in and are forced to one base as a zerg, which means that a) you end up ridiculously behind against an equal one base terran (or even a two base terran who has expanded) or b) you're forced to all in roaches, banelings or whatever. Either way the situation is just as dire if not worse. The main point of putting the hatch up early, is to allow for the extra production that sitting on one base will simply not allow. Furthermore, if you can hold off the initial push, sitting on two base will leave you in a much better economic standpoint compared to holding it off on one base.
Idra and ret stated somewhere that sitting on one base didn't yield enough larva to defend against this kind of scv/marine rush, which is why the hatch first is necessary. So please people, don't say 15 hatch is "risky', it's the best way to deal with this kind of rush, (for macro style zergs, anyway)
Really? You think 15 hatch is the best way to deal with a marine/scv cheese?
Can we have the elitist forums where people actually need to earn posting privileges please?
Matter of fact, he did it twice in the same Bo5. I don't see why cheesing is a bad thing even deep in the leagues.
Does Jaedong have a shot at winning a longer game?
Exactly.
Rain has absolutely no chance of winning a game vs NesTea unless he abuses ugly early game all-in mechanics.
You mean like how Fruitdealer and other zerg pros go 6pool? You're dissing GSL 1 world champion every time you talk about early all-ins lol.
And by your definition, even *faking* a marine rush is somehow abusing the game. People seem to think Zerg shouldn't have to build a single zergling at all unless they want to attack. Nobody is allowed to attack Zerg until they are "ready", so that they can pull way ahead with multiple expansions, queens, and drones all ready. Wrong.
If any race is known for abusing early game mechanics, it's Zerg. Season 3 that's changing, and I look forward to new and original BOs as a random player.
I understand that the marine+scv allin is possible because of the power of terran mules. How about bringing about the below change to MULE mineral returns:
MULE minerals/sec = function of (( total number of scv's currently mining) / (total number of scvs))
That way the MULE serves it's role even during the early game when the terran has low worker count, but the income drops when SCVs are pulled for all-in attacks.
Honestly I really really freakin hope Blizzard will do something about all this simple MMM crap. Have been saying it since the very beginning and it's only gotten more refined and more bs. Add in a couple siege tanks and bunkers and it's almost impossible for a zerg to beat.
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
That's kind of a dumb way to see it tbh. 2 players, who I admit are insanely good(but are VERY macro oriented), say that a particular build is the best defense against early 2 rax pressure, but the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against them. 14 hatch loses like 80% of the time to these all ins. If something is only a 20% win rate against a certain strat, I would hardly consider that the best option.
I don't understand why some zerg players feel that getting an extremely fast expansion should be God given right when you play as zerg. It's a greedy build, period. The counter to greedy builds is early pressure, period.
On December 07 2010 13:16 oprandom wrote: Lastly, by this standard Fruitdealer should apologize and hand back his trophy for going 6pool against OGSInca.
People who complain about marine scv all-ins have no right to unless they were against 6pool. Didn't hear a peep from most of you, guess why. It's because Zerg only considers it unfair if Terran cheeses lol.
I'm a random player for the record, but it's just funny to see how biased people are.
6 pool has much much lower success rate than 2 rax allin. And the one where fruitdealer did it was on a 4 player map so it was even twice as much more lower chance of success. Your the only person in this thread who is stupid enough to integrate a player doing 6 pool with a player doing 2 rax allin.
Rain should never apologize for his marine/scv all-in and neither should any other terran player. SC players need to play to win to the best of their ability and not avoid certain strategies because it's not as entertaining. If there is an exploit, it must be exploited to the fullest. That way, either the other races are forced to adapt or if it's unadaptable Blizzard is forced to patch it.
In this way the exploit is fixed. If people like Rain never exploit the weak beginning of the Zerg, then the exploit still exists, but everyone chooses to ignore it, but it will undoubtedly show up later. It may make for some frustrating games at the beginning of the GSL. However, this process is absolutely necessary for the longevity of SC2 as e-sports. The games should be entertaining because they are and not because of some WWE show-boating.
On December 07 2010 13:07 avilo wrote: don't see why fans are mad at the player. He does what you do to win. they should be mad more at blizard.
Pretty much this. The moment people start blaming the players for playing to win is the moment you abandon your love of competition. Blame the game, not the player (also lol @ the bias, I'd like to see a zerg apologize for winning a game with the brilliant "s, hold down z" strategy)
I just hope that Blizz gives this whole situation a long, hard look. The game really seems to have DEvolved in my opinion, contrary to tasteosis'. In season one, you could expect anything from heavy reaper harass to baneling bombs from overlords. Now we see the exact same game over and over again on the same maps, with a few exceptions. GSL3 has been abysmal in terms of quality compared to the first two seasons.
On December 07 2010 13:16 oprandom wrote: Lastly, by this standard Fruitdealer should apologize and hand back his trophy for going 6pool against OGSInca.
People who complain about marine scv all-ins have no right to unless they were against 6pool. Didn't hear a peep from most of you, guess why. It's because Zerg only considers it unfair if Terran cheeses lol.
I'm a random player for the record, but it's just funny to see how biased people are.
6 pool has much much lower success rate than 2 rax allin. And the one where fruitdealer did it was on a 4 player map so it was even twice as much more lower chance of success. Your the only person in this thread who is stupid enough to integrate a player doing 6 pool with a player doing 2 rax allin.
6 pool is only less effective because people have figured it out and it has been around for a long time. Everytime a new cheese is developed people break out their keyboard nunchuks and start begging Blizzard for a patch - "the game is broken" we cry..
Surely constant patching and changing will severely affect the stability of the game? Why not let players figure the game out; if a new strategy is developed - let those negatively affected use their 14 hours a day practice sessions to learn how to beat it!
Yes all in play is pretty lame to watch - but how the fuck is this Rain's fault? Everyone seems to be convinced that Nestea is the better player; okay - well then why did he not see this coming? Why do zergs not scout this and adapt their play; dropping a 14 hatch, knowing there will be 2 rax pressure is highly risky; there has to be better ways around this because we have seen 2 rax pressure fail? (please don't quote me and say "well IdrA and Ret seem to think 14 hatch is the best response to 2 rax; despite both of them being fucking awesome players i don't see how this is true - there has to be a better choice?)
I am just a bit annoyed that Rain is suffering so much backlash for this approach; the current state of the game demands this response to early hatch play.
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
That's kind of a dumb way to see it tbh. 2 players, who I admit are insanely good(but are VERY macro oriented), say that a particular build is the best defense against early 2 rax pressure, but the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against them. 14 hatch loses like 80% of the time to these all ins. If something is only a 20% win rate against a certain strat, I would hardly consider that the best option.
I don't understand why some zerg players feel that getting an extremely fast expansion should be God given right when you play as zerg. It's a greedy build, period. The counter to greedy builds is early pressure, period.
notice that almost every other zerg is going hatch first as well? you really think every single zerg is throwing away thousands of dollars out of stubborn greed?
For all of the ppl who said macro against zerg doesn't work as terran, have you watched jinro play? Please understand that its not imba, it just called being good. It is just something hard to understand unfortunately.
On December 07 2010 13:36 FlamingTurd wrote: Honestly I really really freakin hope Blizzard will do something about all this simple MMM crap. Have been saying it since the very beginning and it's only gotten more refined and more bs. Add in a couple siege tanks and bunkers and it's almost impossible for a zerg to beat.
Honestly, I really really hope Blizzard will doing something about all this simple zergling baneling crap.
I kid, I kid, that was fucking poor to watch, todays games were some of the poorest garbage I've ever seen, I just hope the rest of the round of 8 is better. It's horrible watching some smug terran make just marines, select all of his SCVs and attack.
On December 07 2010 13:51 IAttackYou wrote: For all of the ppl who said macro against zerg doesn't work as terran, have they watched jinro play? Please understand that its not imba, it just called being good. It is just something hard to understand unfortunately.
All props to Jinro for being an incredible player but do you actually believe Moons macro is anything more than average for a Zerg pro? It's a bad example.
I wanna see a good Terran like Jinro win in a pure macro game against people like Fruit Dealer, Leenock, Nestea, Idra or Ret.
rain did not use cheesy plays. he used a strat that works very well vs 14 hatch, and nestea refused to adapt. It actually pisses me off that people are targeting Rain for winning the mind games, and the series. It's not like nestea had no chance of winning, he didnt adjust his play. not to mention that Rain didnt go into each match going "im going to marine/ scv all-in" he reacted to the 14 hatch opening.
Leave TSL_rain alone, he deserves to be where he is; and certainly more than anyone that is talking trash on him.
maybe if Nestea didn't repeatedly stick with a strategy that was obviously not working (hatch first), the outcome would have been different. to me this was the perfect example of a Zerg that forgot there are other viable options early game.
don't blame Rain for exploiting a flaw in his opponent's play! props to him and shame on Nestea!
On December 07 2010 13:16 oprandom wrote: Lastly, by this standard Fruitdealer should apologize and hand back his trophy for going 6pool against OGSInca.
People who complain about marine scv all-ins have no right to unless they were against 6pool. Didn't hear a peep from most of you, guess why. It's because Zerg only considers it unfair if Terran cheeses lol.
I'm a random player for the record, but it's just funny to see how biased people are.
6 pool has much much lower success rate than 2 rax allin. And the one where fruitdealer did it was on a 4 player map so it was even twice as much more lower chance of success. Your the only person in this thread who is stupid enough to integrate a player doing 6 pool with a player doing 2 rax allin.
6 pool is only less effective because people have figured it out and it has been around for a long time. Everytime a new cheese is developed people break out their keyboard nunchuks and start begging Blizzard for a patch - "the game is broken" we cry..
Surely constant patching and changing will severely affect the stability of the game? Why not let players figure the game out; if a new strategy is developed - let those negatively affected use their 14 hours a day practice sessions to learn how to beat it!
Yes all in play is pretty lame to watch - but how the fuck is this Rain's fault? Everyone seems to be convinced that Nestea is the better player; okay - well then why did he not see this coming? Why do zergs not scout this and adapt their play; dropping a 14 hatch, knowing there will be 2 rax pressure is highly risky; there has to be better ways around this because we have seen 2 rax pressure fail? (please don't quote me and say "well IdrA and Ret seem to think 14 hatch is the best response to 2 rax; despite both of them being fucking awesome players i don't see how this is true - there has to be a better choice?)
I am just a bit annoyed that Rain is suffering so much backlash for this approach; the current state of the game demands this response to early hatch play.
Just my 2 cents.
its less effective because workers can defend it with less losses for the defense to the opponent
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
That's kind of a dumb way to see it tbh. 2 players, who I admit are insanely good(but are VERY macro oriented), say that a particular build is the best defense against early 2 rax pressure, but the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against them. 14 hatch loses like 80% of the time to these all ins. If something is only a 20% win rate against a certain strat, I would hardly consider that the best option.
I don't understand why some zerg players feel that getting an extremely fast expansion should be God given right when you play as zerg. It's a greedy build, period. The counter to greedy builds is early pressure, period.
notice that almost every other zerg is going hatch first as well? you really think every single zerg is throwing away thousands of dollars out of stubborn greed?
Very fair point - but surely in amongst the hours of practice that goes into a pro gaming team there is a better solution;
On December 07 2010 13:16 oprandom wrote: Lastly, by this standard Fruitdealer should apologize and hand back his trophy for going 6pool against OGSInca.
People who complain about marine scv all-ins have no right to unless they were against 6pool. Didn't hear a peep from most of you, guess why. It's because Zerg only considers it unfair if Terran cheeses lol.
I'm a random player for the record, but it's just funny to see how biased people are.
6 pool has much much lower success rate than 2 rax allin. And the one where fruitdealer did it was on a 4 player map so it was even twice as much more lower chance of success. Your the only person in this thread who is stupid enough to integrate a player doing 6 pool with a player doing 2 rax allin.
6 pool is only less effective because people have figured it out and it has been around for a long time. Everytime a new cheese is developed people break out their keyboard nunchuks and start begging Blizzard for a patch - "the game is broken" we cry..
Surely constant patching and changing will severely affect the stability of the game? Why not let players figure the game out; if a new strategy is developed - let those negatively affected use their 14 hours a day practice sessions to learn how to beat it!
Yes all in play is pretty lame to watch - but how the fuck is this Rain's fault? Everyone seems to be convinced that Nestea is the better player; okay - well then why did he not see this coming? Why do zergs not scout this and adapt their play; dropping a 14 hatch, knowing there will be 2 rax pressure is highly risky; there has to be better ways around this because we have seen 2 rax pressure fail? (please don't quote me and say "well IdrA and Ret seem to think 14 hatch is the best response to 2 rax; despite both of them being fucking awesome players i don't see how this is true - there has to be a better choice?)
I am just a bit annoyed that Rain is suffering so much backlash for this approach; the current state of the game demands this response to early hatch play.
Just my 2 cents.
its less effective because workers can defend it with less losses for the defense to the opponent
Yeah - thank you for noting the obvious; the point was it needs to be figured out ingame; not just insta-patched by Blizzard; sorry if that point wasn't clear.
On December 07 2010 13:16 oprandom wrote: Lastly, by this standard Fruitdealer should apologize and hand back his trophy for going 6pool against OGSInca.
People who complain about marine scv all-ins have no right to unless they were against 6pool. Didn't hear a peep from most of you, guess why. It's because Zerg only considers it unfair if Terran cheeses lol.
I'm a random player for the record, but it's just funny to see how biased people are.
6 pool has much much lower success rate than 2 rax allin. And the one where fruitdealer did it was on a 4 player map so it was even twice as much more lower chance of success. Your the only person in this thread who is stupid enough to integrate a player doing 6 pool with a player doing 2 rax allin.
6 pool is only less effective because people have figured it out and it has been around for a long time. Everytime a new cheese is developed people break out their keyboard nunchuks and start begging Blizzard for a patch - "the game is broken" we cry..
Surely constant patching and changing will severely affect the stability of the game? Why not let players figure the game out; if a new strategy is developed - let those negatively affected use their 14 hours a day practice sessions to learn how to beat it!
Yes all in play is pretty lame to watch - but how the fuck is this Rain's fault? Everyone seems to be convinced that Nestea is the better player; okay - well then why did he not see this coming? Why do zergs not scout this and adapt their play; dropping a 14 hatch, knowing there will be 2 rax pressure is highly risky; there has to be better ways around this because we have seen 2 rax pressure fail? (please don't quote me and say "well IdrA and Ret seem to think 14 hatch is the best response to 2 rax; despite both of them being fucking awesome players i don't see how this is true - there has to be a better choice?)
I am just a bit annoyed that Rain is suffering so much backlash for this approach; the current state of the game demands this response to early hatch play.
Just my 2 cents.
While I agree that 6 pool has been much more 'figured out', I have a hard time seeing a 2rax/scv rush become that much less effective by 'figuring it out'. Maybe (and I hope) I'll be proven wrong, but I think 2rax will always be significantly stronger as an all-in than any super early pool as your workers will not die as fast (range v melee) to lings and can actually fight outright against them without taking as many losses. 6-pool is also a much more legitimate 'all-in' than 2 rax, as the amount of damage a Terran needs to do is a lot less than what a 6-pool needs to do to at least break even. Also, on close 2 player maps, normal scout timing is almost always enough for Terran to throw down an extra depot/rax to finish their wall and sacrifice a slightly delayed orbital for that.
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
That's kind of a dumb way to see it tbh. 2 players, who I admit are insanely good(but are VERY macro oriented), say that a particular build is the best defense against early 2 rax pressure, but the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against them. 14 hatch loses like 80% of the time to these all ins. If something is only a 20% win rate against a certain strat, I would hardly consider that the best option.
I don't understand why some zerg players feel that getting an extremely fast expansion should be God given right when you play as zerg. It's a greedy build, period. The counter to greedy builds is early pressure, period.
notice that almost every other zerg is going hatch first as well? you really think every single zerg is throwing away thousands of dollars out of stubborn greed?
Very fair point - but surely in amongst the hours of practice that goes into a pro gaming team there is a better solution;
or are we concluding the game is broken?
ya, we've seen all those awesome solutions in the gsl games oh wait
Why do people think all-ins are boring? I find them to be extremely suspenseful and dramatic. I do agree that it wouldn't be that way if we truly started to see them in every game, though. But it can also be very boring to watch two sides build up all game and then have a single battle where the first person to get a 60/40 army edge in that battle goes on to win the game, which is usually the case. Plus, I'm a random player and Protoss sympathizer, but I do feel Terran has a distinct disadvantage in long games vs Zerg, so if I was Terran and I was playing to win, I'd do it too.
Another point to reiterate is that if the maps reward all-in play, that's what will (and should) emerge in high-level tournaments. If the community doesn't like it, hopefully Blizzard can sense this and make the necessary changes.
Also, the Hong-Un wall-in in game 4 was absolutely insane, he deserves to win the GSL for that alone.
On December 07 2010 03:28 Maggeus wrote: I stand to my opinion when the match finished : going hatch first in every game on every map cost Nestea the game. 2 rax into 4 rax marines is absolutely unstoppable on some maps if you are going to hatch first, coupled with some SCVs.
As Artosis said, going all-in is something every pro do. But what's important is when you do it. Just like when JD goes fast pool against Flash to punish a 14 CC, Rain went for a 2 into 4 rax against a 14 hatch. What's so wrong with that ?
But an early push beats a macro opening. That's wrong. Zerg should be able to open with their best macro game without any fear of a terran push.
Clearly the game is broken because zergs can't safely manage to go for their most economic opening every game.
Also, like others have said, don't blame Rain for trying to win. One problem here is one which doesn't even need Blizzard intervention. It's called custom maps. Instead of using maps with short rush distances where early pressure/all-ins are easier due to short distances, or where there are choke 'issues' etc, make maps which don't necessarily have these features.
dont be stupid, the 'best macro opening' is the only chance at beating the build because terran barely has to sacrifice anything to do it. means if you do anything but hatch expand it doesnt matter if you live, you'll never catch up in econ.
Amem!
You CAN defend with, say, 10 or 11 pool. But you will be SO FAR BEHIND it doesn't even matter anymore.
"But 11 pool is almost as good as 14 hatch, said that other thread!"
They didn't quite factored the fact you actually have to pump lings even before your queen hatchs and after that the creep spread from the 2nd hatch and aditional larva are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the queen. Because by this time you already had to sacrifice the queen and some drones to counter the SCV 'all in' ( how can it be all in if I see Terrans doing SCVs 'all ins' TWICE a game?).
In the end I blame MULES for the imba of this strat.
And don't expect pros to throw games away by going early pool in torneys just to prove that hatch first is actually safer against this BS.
On December 07 2010 13:51 IAttackYou wrote: For all of the ppl who said macro against zerg doesn't work as terran, have they watched jinro play? Please understand that its not imba, it just called being good. It is just something hard to understand unfortunately.
All props to Jinro for being an incredible player but do you actually believe Moons macro is anything more than average for a Zerg pro? It's a bad example.
I wanna see a good Terran like Jinro win in a pure macro game against people like Fruit Dealer, Leenock, Nestea, Idra or Ret.
Jinro is good since he is able to contain the zerg with tank lines and strangle them to death by having even bases, so yes I think he will be able to beat those players.
Are we all so eager to see a Protoss do well in a tournament that we'll ignore HongUnPrime's Pylon Wall/Void Ray nonsense to beat Fruit Dealer?
Are you joking? That was the most entertained I've been in GSL3 so far. HongUn deserves to win the tournament for that game alone. Did you read the community thread? So many people were thrilled and calling it epic.
If you're talking about the other game where he just walled the ramp and then had his proxy stargates scouted, he lost anyway so he wasn't rewarded for it.
Carriers, epic dynamic continuous wall to defend an all-in, and the first Protoss in the round of 4. Even if I hated Protoss I'd be happy to see that guy make it.
Maybe Blizzard doesn't want Zerg's to hatch first every game? They did lower the build time by ~14% which will make this even stronger. The 2 rax bunker push isn't going away; zerg will just have to learn how to do a pool first.
I don't see why people dislike this build so strongly; if you let a zerg hatch first you are asking for trouble because once they get the 2nd queen up at any point in time they can make 18 lings or 9 drones which means you can't really play them straight up, as terran/toss can't build units nearly as first as Zerg; especially early game.
In reality; it's either marine/scv vs drone/ling which requires a lot of micro on both sides OR marines/tank v Ling/Bling which requires more micro from the terran player. If you ask me, I'd rather see the Terran all in.
I find it appalling that people are blaming players for using cheese, all-ins, or other "gimicky" strategies to win games.
It's a tournament. You play to win. Period.
If I knew for a fact that I would win every game in the GSL if I worker rushed, I would absolutely worker rush enough times to win each best of X series. I may try other strategies once in a while, but only if I knew I could still pull an auto-win with my worker rush strategy.
If the crowd is going to be pissed at any players for crappy games, they should be pissed at the players who are notoriously good but underestimate their opponents. Players who lose to cheese because they don't scout. Players who get too greedy. Those types of players.
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
That's kind of a dumb way to see it tbh. 2 players, who I admit are insanely good(but are VERY macro oriented), say that a particular build is the best defense against early 2 rax pressure, but the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against them. 14 hatch loses like 80% of the time to these all ins. If something is only a 20% win rate against a certain strat, I would hardly consider that the best option.
I don't understand why some zerg players feel that getting an extremely fast expansion should be God given right when you play as zerg. It's a greedy build, period. The counter to greedy builds is early pressure, period.
notice that almost every other zerg is going hatch first as well? you really think every single zerg is throwing away thousands of dollars out of stubborn greed?
Very fair point - but surely in amongst the hours of practice that goes into a pro gaming team there is a better solution;
or are we concluding the game is broken?
ya, we've seen all those awesome solutions in the gsl games oh wait
So i'll infer an answer to my question in my post from your response..
On December 07 2010 14:23 Sprouter wrote: it's funny that there is a lot of hate for cheesy builds because when boxer did it in BW everyone thought he was a baller
Honestly, how creative do you have to be to make some marines and pull your workers to attack?
Are you really comparing that to some of the creative stuff boxer came up with?
On December 07 2010 14:23 Sprouter wrote: it's funny that there is a lot of hate for cheesy builds because when boxer did it in BW everyone thought he was a baller
No, he was hated for bunk rushing there was MASSIVE netizen rage at the boxer vs yellow incident - they were expecting the bo5 of a lifetime and instead all they got was x3 bunker rush.
It's pretty nonsense. Just the threat (and by threat, we mean 24/7 because 2 or 4 rax timing all-in is going to be deadly whenever if your droning) of getting obliterated at any minute forcing you to make lings but risk falling behind economically. As Artosis said I think the best counter is "A Blind Baneling Nest" which is kind of silly. It's always a guessing game of chance against terran, which is what I hate the most. The ball is always in their court.
Like that's been previously said a billion of times. 14 hatch is safest vs 2 rax play. Why? A) 1 Base Zerg is a huge risk in and of itself. Usually 1 base Z loses vs 1 Base T anyway, so if he continues with the mass Marine pressure, it's still a coinflip.
B) Larva is crucial. As said before, you just won't have enough to compete, and fuel the economy simotaneously.
C) One could argue that the faster creep at your expansion, allows for a faster defensive crawler to be put there. Making it a safer build (technically) while being ahead in bases.
D) 2 Rax pressure is a build with 0 gas. As stated, the Terran can either plop down 2 more rax and go to 4 or plop down a FE. If you 1 base, your behind economically playing catchup while he just turtles. Just by not FEing your susceptible to losing to a stronger mid-game push thanks to being behind. Overall 14 Hatch just seems the most safe(it covers ALL grounds, which is what "strong" Zerg play is nowadays).
On December 07 2010 14:23 Sprouter wrote: it's funny that there is a lot of hate for cheesy builds because when boxer did it in BW everyone thought he was a baller
the problem is that 2rax can't properly be called cheese (no going back after thousands of man-hours of forums proselytizing about how cheesy it is, though). Thanks mostly to Mules, it appears that if 2rax is played out correctly there is no chance that you will not be at an advantage vs. Zerg.
Boxer was putting something on the line vs. Yellow; if his rushes were stopped he would have been at a huge (probably insurmountable) disadvantage. 2rax has no chance of a disadvantage.
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
That's kind of a dumb way to see it tbh. 2 players, who I admit are insanely good(but are VERY macro oriented), say that a particular build is the best defense against early 2 rax pressure, but the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against them. 14 hatch loses like 80% of the time to these all ins. If something is only a 20% win rate against a certain strat, I would hardly consider that the best option.
I don't understand why some zerg players feel that getting an extremely fast expansion should be God given right when you play as zerg. It's a greedy build, period. The counter to greedy builds is early pressure, period.
notice that almost every other zerg is going hatch first as well? you really think every single zerg is throwing away thousands of dollars out of stubborn greed?
Very fair point - but surely in amongst the hours of practice that goes into a pro gaming team there is a better solution;
or are we concluding the game is broken?
ya, we've seen all those awesome solutions in the gsl games oh wait
Do you really think there is no solution to combat a 2 rax all in as zerg then? If so, that would mean something needs to be patched, however I'm inclined to believe that perhaps not enough time and practice has passed since this strat has become more popular and widely used. I mean what is Blizz going to do, patch the game every 2 months when a new strategy comes up that people can't figure out a way to stop in a couple months? I don't mean to be hostile or anything like that, it's just the game doesn't seem so broken that a terran will auto win with a certain build and Blizz doesn't know about it. I think 2 months is too soon to conclude that a certain build is unbeatable with how deep this game is.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
That's a joke, right?
Using a legitimate strategy that works (cheese, all-in, etc.) is different than cheating or hacking -,-'
In a tournament, you play to win. Or else why the heck would you play in the tournament? If you want to have fun with your friends and not really keep score, you don't put money on the line. The GSL? These are the best of the best, competing for titles, cash, bragging rights, and future careers.
Please don't create a strawman and say that condoning things like "making lots of marines early on" is the same as rooting for another match-fixing scandal.
I don't even think Rain's win on Xelnaga was cheesy at all. He went 2 rax which in itself is not all in, it can be turned into pressure build easily. Instead he bunker pushed which couldnt be stopped because zerglins arent out early enough. If the bunkers didnt work out, he could have just canceled/salvaged them and retreated. At the end of the game he even had an OC finished and going to/landed at his expo. He was not all in at all.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
That's a joke, right?
Using a legitimate strategy that works (cheese, all-in, etc.) is different than cheating or hacking -,-'
In a tournament, you play to win. Or else why the heck would you play in the tournament? If you want to have fun with your friends and not really keep score, you don't put money on the line. The GSL? These are the best of the best, competing for titles, cash, bragging rights, and future careers.
Please don't create a strawman and say that condoning things like "making lots of marines early on" is the same as rooting for another match-fixing scandal.
Quoted for truth;
Comparing cheese and all-in strategies to "cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off?" that is the most fucking ridiculous thing i have read on TL in a while
I actually couldn't help but laugh out loud when reading that post.
There is a protoss version of this. 2 gate chrono zealot. The bunker creep(mind games) version would be to fake chrono a single gateway but not build a single zealot bo is ( gate x2 then forge then cyber, but forge will be hidden, then take your natural). zerg will make too many lings.
Early game the protoss is actually ahead of the terran so its not the mules, zergs just need to pretend they are playing against protoss.
On December 07 2010 14:23 Sprouter wrote: it's funny that there is a lot of hate for cheesy builds because when boxer did it in BW everyone thought he was a baller
No, he was hated for bunk rushing there was MASSIVE netizen rage at the boxer vs yellow incident - they were expecting the bo5 of a lifetime and instead all they got was x3 bunker rush.
haha i did not know that. thanks for clearing that up Plexa
On December 07 2010 13:21 rarin wrote: I don't know how many people realise this, but staying on one base isn't necessarily the best situation either. Sure, it's safer, but what happens after that? You get bunkered in and are forced to one base as a zerg, which means that a) you end up ridiculously behind against an equal one base terran (or even a two base terran who has expanded) or b) you're forced to all in roaches, banelings or whatever. Either way the situation is just as dire if not worse. The main point of putting the hatch up early, is to allow for the extra production that sitting on one base will simply not allow. Furthermore, if you can hold off the initial push, sitting on two base will leave you in a much better economic standpoint compared to holding it off on one base.
Idra and ret stated somewhere that sitting on one base didn't yield enough larva to defend against this kind of scv/marine rush, which is why the hatch first is necessary. So please people, don't say 15 hatch is "risky', it's the best way to deal with this kind of rush, (for macro style zergs, anyway)
Really? You think 15 hatch is the best way to deal with a marine/scv cheese?
Can we have the elitist forums where people actually need to earn posting privileges please?
and then it would be you arguing with idra and ret over this viability of 14/15 hatch so i don't know why you are just disregarding this poster's position?
On December 07 2010 14:23 Sprouter wrote: it's funny that there is a lot of hate for cheesy builds because when boxer did it in BW everyone thought he was a baller
No, he was hated for bunk rushing there was MASSIVE netizen rage at the boxer vs yellow incident - they were expecting the bo5 of a lifetime and instead all they got was x3 bunker rush.
True - but we aren't talking about boxer vs yellow "most amazing bo5 in the world" - we are talking about Nestea vs Rain; nowhere near close to being the most amazing series in sc2 - so i don't get why people are so mad?
On December 07 2010 11:46 ArtOfRandom wrote: Some people keep claiming that 14 hatch is the safest build against 2 rax because of larvae or because of creep or because idra said so or whatever, but where's the proof?
I sadly have no proof, but when Ret and IdrA - two of the best foreigner macro zergs - put their heads together to solve the problem of 2rax pressure, I listen to their conclusion.
In this case, they seem to have agreed that it is safest to 14hatch vs 2rax.
For now, until proven otherwise, that's good enough for me.
That's kind of a dumb way to see it tbh. 2 players, who I admit are insanely good(but are VERY macro oriented), say that a particular build is the best defense against early 2 rax pressure, but the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against them. 14 hatch loses like 80% of the time to these all ins. If something is only a 20% win rate against a certain strat, I would hardly consider that the best option.
I don't understand why some zerg players feel that getting an extremely fast expansion should be God given right when you play as zerg. It's a greedy build, period. The counter to greedy builds is early pressure, period.
notice that almost every other zerg is going hatch first as well? you really think every single zerg is throwing away thousands of dollars out of stubborn greed?
Very fair point - but surely in amongst the hours of practice that goes into a pro gaming team there is a better solution;
or are we concluding the game is broken?
ya, we've seen all those awesome solutions in the gsl games oh wait
Do you really think there is no solution to combat a 2 rax all in as zerg then? If so, that would mean something needs to be patched, however I'm inclined to believe that perhaps not enough time and practice has passed since this strat has become more popular and widely used. I mean what is Blizz going to do, patch the game every 2 months when a new strategy comes up that people can't figure out a way to stop in a couple months? I don't mean to be hostile or anything like that, it's just the game doesn't seem so broken that a terran will auto win with a certain build and Blizz doesn't know about it. I think 2 months is too soon to conclude that a certain build is unbeatable with how deep this game is.
I have to say that there just is not too much depth in to this particular scenario since it happens so early in the game that the decision making involved is just whether to go hatch first and get a spine up asap or try some 1 base stuff. And sadly, neither really works in those short rush distance maps since it is not possible to transition well from 1 base builds against a terran that does not have to sacrifice economy to pull his strategy off. That means the 1 basing zerg is deciding to go all in himself, and because the 2 rax strategy is all but weak to early aggression, the zerg will lose miserably.
EDIT: Actually there is one more thing a zerg could try, which is a fast inbase hatchery, which would be a little (not much though) easier to defend early on, but... not very optimistic about that solution either... not sure if the pro's have put much thought to this possibility?
JSL - Kyrix Game1: Fast expo Game2: Fast factory/port followed by tank cliff drop
MarineKing - Nexline Did not happen
Leenock - Clide Game1: Fast expo Game2: Thor drop on cliff Game3: Fast expo
Hyperdub - Max Game1: Proxy 2 Rax + base Rax + bunker at natural (did not bring SCVs) Game2: Fast expo Game3: Bunker block
Alive - Zenio Game1: Expo into Marine/Tank push (Macro game) Game2: Blue flame hellions into macro game
Polt - Joon Game1: 3 Reapers into Expo in Timing Push Game2: Reactor Hellions into macro game
Jinro - Drug Game1: Marine-hellions into Tank cliff drop Game2: Two Rax pressure into Expo into macro game
Moon - ButterflyEffect Game1: E-bay block into single Hellion/Basnhee into MMM timing push Game2: 1 base reaper into macro Game3: 2 Rax pressure to force lings into Marine/Tank
Check - Destination Game1: Early Stim/Fast expo into 5 rax MM Game2: Reaper into 5 Rax mass marine allin
RO32
Bitbybit - NewDawn Game1: 2 Rax Marine/SCV allin Game2: 2 port basnhee into some weird everything all-in
Fruitdealer - Sc Game1: 2 Rax + bunker block into macro Game2: Expansion build Game3: Macro game
Ret - Best Game1: 1 Barracks FE into macro game Game2: Marine/Hellion/Medivac harass into 2 port banshees Game3: MMM 1-base all-in (SCVs not pulled)
MarineKing - Monster Game1: 1 rax expo into mass MM Game2: Marine/SCV attack into MM (not sure how many SCV's pulled i.e. allin or not) Game3: 2 Rax marine pressure into expand into 4 rax marine attack
July - Alive Game1: Hellion harass into macro game Game2: Attempted 4 marine/1 hellion harass into expo
Jinro - Moon Game1: Fast expo into macro game Game2: 4 Marine/1 hellion harass into m acro game
MVP-Idra Game1: Early marine pressure into Expo into macro game Game2: 2 Rax + bunker block Game3: 2 Rax marine pressure into expo into MM stim timing attack
Ro16
BitbyBite - FD AFAIK, both games were Marine/SCV allins
NesTea - Maka have yet to watch these games and no summaries available
MarineKing - Leenock have yet to watch these games and no summaries available
People, in general, seem to be exaggerating the amount of games involving Marine/SCV all-ins. Only Bitbybit and TSL_Rain have used that strategy on a regular basis. Apart from that we have seen a wide range of strategies/builds employed be terrans which have a healthy mix of bunker block/early game pressure/timing attacks/expo builds. The SCV allins seemed to have worked better for the two players who used it while other people got eliminated. This might be coincidental or cor-relational on which I am no expert to comment.
Unfortunately, the community seems to have a short-term memory and can only remember the latest few series. For e.g., if the Clide-Leenock series had happened in Ro8 swapping places with Rain-NesTea series, a big chunk of the same community which is now heralding this GSL as the worst would have said it is the best GSL till date. I am not debating the TvZ balance issues but debating the overall quality of the games in this GSL will be at par with the games in previous GSL but people tend to give weightage to later rounds which skews the 'quality' of this GSL.
On December 07 2010 14:23 Sprouter wrote: it's funny that there is a lot of hate for cheesy builds because when boxer did it in BW everyone thought he was a baller
No, he was hated for bunk rushing there was MASSIVE netizen rage at the boxer vs yellow incident - they were expecting the bo5 of a lifetime and instead all they got was x3 bunker rush.
True - but we aren't talking about boxer vs yellow "most amazing bo5 in the world" - we are talking about Nestea vs Rain; nowhere near close to being the most amazing series in sc2 - so i don't get why people are so mad?
here is why:
nestea, a former champion, is taking on rain, who is perceived by the community at large as the inferior player. Yet Rain won using a build that can be pressure, all-in, or high-econ at the drop of a hat, including attacking with a large number of workers twice--a move that is widely regarded as acknowledging that you cannot beat the other player straight up.
zerg cannot scout or predict which form the build will take and what's more, zerg cannot compete without 14h if the terran chooses the high-econ form.
it's a rotten situation for a best-of-x--you can do something drastic to counter 2rax on ladder and keep winning as long as you don't hit the same player twice or more, but in a BOx they're gonna catch on really quick, particularly at gsl level
for all that, i don't fault either nestea or rain in particular. the fault is more likely with the maps, mules, and the difficulty of playing straight up TvZ
On December 07 2010 14:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I find it appalling that people are blaming players for using cheese, all-ins, or other "gimicky" strategies to win games.
It's a tournament. You play to win. Period.
If I knew for a fact that I would win every game in the GSL if I worker rushed, I would absolutely worker rush enough times to win each best of X series. I may try other strategies once in a while, but only if I knew I could still pull an auto-win with my worker rush strategy.
If the crowd is going to be pissed at any players for crappy games, they should be pissed at the players who are notoriously good but underestimate their opponents. Players who lose to cheese because they don't scout. Players who get too greedy. Those types of players.
This.
Fruitdealer and Nestea are both at fault for these things. Perhaps they are the better players on average... but in those series, it didn't show at ALL. Nestea didn't even TRY to adapt.. in a game of strategy, FD lost the last game because he didn't even TRY to scout his opponents base.
Please, all you zerg players QQing out there, it's time to wake up to the fact that, maybe, JUST maybe, these players were actually outplayed?
Oh and PS - no one was ever sure that 14 hatch was safe against all ins... until NesTea defended it against Foxer's play in the GSL 2 Finals.
Now no one thinks 14 hatch is safe... until someone figures out a new timing or a new way of defending.
It's a dynamic game that has changed so many times in just these 4 months that it BLOWS my mind, all the people saying the game or matchups are broken are just acting stupid.
The entire concept of competition is in part built on the assumption that the players are playing to win. If the players are not playing to win then you are not watching competition you are watching something that may be approximating competition.
It then follows that spectators should want to watch players playing to win. You were not happy with the result this time? That's life. It happens. A spectator should never ever want players to not play to win, even if a given result isn't to your liking; or even if the manner of which that result was attained isn't to your liking.
The integrity of competition should be maintained. Cheese doesn't exist. There are games. There are game players. There are winners and losers. The end.
I'm all for balance talk. I'm all for discussing the state of the game. But to criticize Rain or any player playing to win is absolutely and utterly absurd.
If a large portion of the SC2 community is prone to criticizing players that play to win, then the community has a lot of growing up to do.
JSL - Kyrix Game1: Fast expo Game2: Fast factory/port followed by tank cliff drop
MarineKing - Nexline Did not happen
Leenock - Clide Game1: Fast expo Game2: Thor drop on cliff Game3: Fast expo
Hyperdub - Max Game1: Proxy 2 Rax + base Rax + bunker at natural (did not bring SCVs) Game2: Fast expo Game3: Bunker block
Alive - Zenio Game1: Expo into Marine/Tank push (Macro game) Game2: Blue flame hellions into macro game
Polt - Joon Game1: 3 Reapers into Expo in Timing Push Game2: Reactor Hellions into macro game
Jinro - Drug Game1: Marine-hellions into Tank cliff drop Game2: Two Rax pressure into Expo into macro game
Moon - ButterflyEffect Game1: E-bay block into single Hellion/Basnhee into MMM timing push Game2: 1 base reaper into macro Game3: 2 Rax pressure to force lings into Marine/Tank
Check - Destination Game1: Early Stim/Fast expo into 5 rax MM Game2: Reaper into 5 Rax mass marine allin
RO32
Bitbybit - NewDawn Game1: 2 Rax Marine/SCV allin Game2: 2 port basnhee into some weird everything all-in
Fruitdealer - Sc Game1: 2 Rax + bunker block into macro Game2: Expansion build Game3: Macro game
Ret - Best Game1: 1 Barracks FE into macro game Game2: Marine/Hellion/Medivac harass into 2 port banshees Game3: MMM 1-base all-in (SCVs not pulled)
MarineKing - Monster Game1: 1 rax expo into mass MM Game2: Marine/SCV attack into MM (not sure how many SCV's pulled i.e. allin or not) Game3: 2 Rax marine pressure into expand into 4 rax marine attack
July - Alive Game1: Hellion harass into macro game Game2: Attempted 4 marine/1 hellion harass into expo
Jinro - Moon Game1: Fast expo into macro game Game2: 4 Marine/1 hellion harass into m acro game
MVP-Idra Game1: Early marine pressure into Expo into macro game Game2: 2 Rax + bunker block Game3: 2 Rax marine pressure into expo into MM stim timing attack
Ro16
BitbyBite - FD AFAIK, both games were Marine/SCV allins
NesTea - Maka have yet to watch these games and no summaries available
MarineKing - Leenock have yet to watch these games and no summaries available
People, in general, seem to be exaggerating the amount of games involving Marine/SCV all-ins. Only Bitbybit and TSL_Rain have used that strategy on a regular basis. Apart from that we have seen a wide range of strategies/builds employed be terrans which have a healthy mix of bunker block/early game pressure/timing attacks/expo builds. The SCV allins seemed to have worked better for the two players who used it while other people got eliminated. This might be coincidental or cor-relational on which I am no expert to comment.
Unfortunately, the community seems to have a short-term memory and can only remember the latest few series. For e.g., if the Clide-Leenock series had happened in Ro8 swapping places with Rain-NesTea series, a big chunk of the same community which is now heralding this GSL as the worst would have said it is the best GSL till date. I am not debating the TvZ balance issues but debating the overall quality of the games in this GSL will be at par with the games in previous GSL but people tend to give weightage to later rounds which skews the 'quality' of this GSL.
What? The ones that aren't marine/scv all-ins are those plays that rely on not being scouted (aka can never become standard). The rest are almost exclusively timing attacks that are essentially all-in. And guess what. The others that do heavy tank marine play are the ones that do fine... up until they can't transition at all into the late game! Which is the entire point! As the game progresses, it starts tipping in the favor of Zerg, assuming neither side inflicted serious economic blows on the opponent.
The exception has really been Moon vs Jinro, where I would argue that Jinro simply outplayed Moon, and many agree with me (and it seems many disagree as well). This is coming from a former Zerg player (from the start of the beta) that felt that balance was heavily tipping in favor of Zerg (ASSUMING you could hold off any all-in) since Terran could no longer do certain strats viably (aka Roach range KILLED mech strats entirely). Consequently I switched to Terran on ladder, and my opinion hasn't changed, I still feel the same way. Terran needs to rely on causing significant economic damage through strategic plays or lose to an equally competent opponent. I'm not commenting on the balance on ZvP whatsoever.
On December 07 2010 15:32 FabledIntegral wrote: What? The ones that aren't marine/scv all-ins are those plays that rely on not being scouted (aka can never become standard). The rest are almost exclusively timing attacks that are essentially all-in. And guess what. The others that do heavy tank marine play are the ones that do fine... up until they can't transition at all into the late game! Which is the entire point! As the game progresses, it starts tipping in the favor of Zerg, assuming neither side inflicted serious economic blows on the opponent.
Nestea - Jys G1 and G2 Clide - Leenock G1 and G3 Jinro most games Maka - Sleep G1 JSL - Kyrix G1 Hyperdub - Max G2 Alive - Zenio G1 and G2 Polt - Joon G2 MarineKing - 1 Rax Expo builds (which are not all-in) July - Alive G1 and G2
These games are mostly macro-oriented games. There are other games which I did not list which were more of early pressure into timing attack (which were not all ins) like MVP-Idra G1. Note that I never said that I was commentating on the state of the balance of TvZ match-up. I clearly stated that I am not expert on that. I am commenting that GSL 3 has had a lot of different TvZ builds some of which won while others lost. In this thread alone, multiple posters are said that they only see T's doing all-ins which is clearly not the case. It is not a Marine/SCV all-in fest (or even an all in fest). People are just having a selective memory of the games that are happening in GSL.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
That's a joke, right?
Using a legitimate strategy that works (cheese, all-in, etc.) is different than cheating or hacking -,-'
In a tournament, you play to win. Or else why the heck would you play in the tournament? If you want to have fun with your friends and not really keep score, you don't put money on the line. The GSL? These are the best of the best, competing for titles, cash, bragging rights, and future careers.
Please don't create a strawman and say that condoning things like "making lots of marines early on" is the same as rooting for another match-fixing scandal.
Quoted for truth;
Comparing cheese and all-in strategies to "cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off?" that is the most fucking ridiculous thing i have read on TL in a while
I actually couldn't help but laugh out loud when reading that post.
According to the best zerg players, there is no legit way to counter this at a reasonable rate, thus they are abusing a broken strategy while it works to win money (5rax reaper anyone?). How is that different from cheating? And it's not a strawman, stop spouting that bs "play to win" line if you don't want to answer my question. Anything goes, right? Sorry that I am playing to win my argument.
This is pretty funny that thread got this long. Yes, Rain cheesed, but it seems people didn't watch FruitDealer vs HongunPrime. FD was trying to end almost every game early on, he was cheesing almost as much as Rain. His wins were based on 1 base plays basically, even some of his losses.
On December 07 2010 06:21 Fa1nT wrote: For all the "play to win" people, what about cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off? Anything goes if it means victory right? I have wanted to ask this for a while now... am really getting tired of the "P2W" line for a game that is attempting to be a spectator esport..
That's a joke, right?
Using a legitimate strategy that works (cheese, all-in, etc.) is different than cheating or hacking -,-'
In a tournament, you play to win. Or else why the heck would you play in the tournament? If you want to have fun with your friends and not really keep score, you don't put money on the line. The GSL? These are the best of the best, competing for titles, cash, bragging rights, and future careers.
Please don't create a strawman and say that condoning things like "making lots of marines early on" is the same as rooting for another match-fixing scandal.
Quoted for truth;
Comparing cheese and all-in strategies to "cheating? Maphacking, match fixing, paying people off?" that is the most fucking ridiculous thing i have read on TL in a while
I actually couldn't help but laugh out loud when reading that post.
According to the best zerg players, there is no legit way to counter this at a reasonable rate, thus they are abusing a broken strategy while it works to win money (5rax reaper anyone?). How is that different from cheating? And it's not a strawman, stop spouting that bs "play to win" line if you don't want to answer my question. Anything goes, right? Sorry that I am playing to win my argument.
This is the most twisted logic I have seen in awhile. There is no rule banning marines scv all in therefore it is not cheating. Maphacking or fixing is obviously against the rules. What is wrong with you?
And it's also funny that Zerg QQ thread immediately reaches 37 pages and nobody is even bothering to close it, whereas we didn't see one single protoss in round of 4 in first two GSLs and nobody seemed to care. Moders/admins were also quick to close a lot of threads.
If I knew that each game in the final match was going to end within 5 minutes, I wouldn't waste my time watching it. There's no suspense. No progression of style of play.
Why allow races to tech up to different units if the game could be decided by microing just 2 unit types?
I am almost certain that the GSL will lose viewers if ALL tvz matches came down to scv+marine all-in. The spirit of competition is worthless if no one cares to watch it. It kills the appeal and spells doom for e-sport community of sc2.
Quite frankly theres a super freaking easy way to stop the easy pressure... don't blow 300 minerals on a fast expand and instead /gasp when you see the double barracks you go pool first get an immediate queen and 2 spines and some lings. Extend the creep to the natural and expand.
I'm sick and tired of zerg going 15 freaking hatch into 14 pool and being pissed that the most greedy possible zerg build can be punished by an all in. WELL DUH. On game 5 nestea would have been super safe if he had made a few more spines and scouted properly by saccing speedlings.
On December 07 2010 15:32 FabledIntegral wrote: What? The ones that aren't marine/scv all-ins are those plays that rely on not being scouted (aka can never become standard). The rest are almost exclusively timing attacks that are essentially all-in. And guess what. The others that do heavy tank marine play are the ones that do fine... up until they can't transition at all into the late game! Which is the entire point! As the game progresses, it starts tipping in the favor of Zerg, assuming neither side inflicted serious economic blows on the opponent.
Nestea - Jys G1 and G2 Clide - Leenock G1 and G3 Jinro most games Maka - Sleep G1 JSL - Kyrix G1 Hyperdub - Max G2 Alive - Zenio G1 and G2 Polt - Joon G2 MarineKing - 1 Rax Expo builds (which are not all-in) July - Alive G1 and G2
These games are mostly macro-oriented games. There are other games which I did not list which were more of early pressure into timing attack (which were not all ins) like MVP-Idra G1. Note that I never said that I was commentating on the state of the balance of TvZ match-up. I clearly stated that I am not expert on that. I am commenting that GSL 3 has had a lot of different TvZ builds some of which won while others lost. In this thread alone, multiple posters are said that they only see T's doing all-ins which is clearly not the case. It is not a Marine/SCV all-in fest (or even an all in fest). People are just having a selective memory of the games that are happening in GSL.
I think they're referring to the games that Terran are advancing upon are largely due to all-ins. Aka, Zergs are getting knocked out due to SCV marine all-ins. Could be wrong though. That's what I'd assume, but I don't have anything to back it up atm. Still though, it's undeniable the marine/SCV is still seeming to be a very dominant strategy employed.
Zergs will find a way around it. Surely you cannot buff Zerg anymore, it's becoming broken. I don't know what these Zerg QQers want, to see a game where Zerg can take 5 bases easily and just roflstomp everybody? Is that their idea of fairness?
Boo-fucking-hoo, Zerg players won GSL 2 times. Just try to find a solution, even if it takes time. It's not like other races had easy time.
I would hope Kiwikaki, Huk etc. start QQing as well, so that we see a more balanced thread distribution on here. It's getting a bit ridiculous that Zerg QQ is accepted this easily due to having 1-2 progamers among QQers.
PS Also, a lot of issues are related to maps, not to rax as it is, IMO.
I think Rain played pretty well used a start that counters Nestea BO.Boxer bunker rushed yellow 3 times in a row and people cheer for him and called him a baller now Rain all-ins Nestea and he is a bad player and less skilled?! i don't think so...
Who says the hatch needs to be at your expo if larvae are the issue?[/QUOTE]
Because then you'll end up with marines at your ramp, in a choke point, with bunkers building at the bottom of the ramp, while Terran's income is higher than yours due to mules, and his probably taking his expo.
Hatch first in your own base is not the solution![/QUOTE]
Why not 14 hatch in your base right at the ramp and then immediately follow it up with a couple of spine crawlers right there? It seems like the crawlers would resolve the bunker contain issue and you wouldn't even have to make many zerglings, but it's just a thought. Comments?
On December 07 2010 15:32 FabledIntegral wrote: What? The ones that aren't marine/scv all-ins are those plays that rely on not being scouted (aka can never become standard). The rest are almost exclusively timing attacks that are essentially all-in. And guess what. The others that do heavy tank marine play are the ones that do fine... up until they can't transition at all into the late game! Which is the entire point! As the game progresses, it starts tipping in the favor of Zerg, assuming neither side inflicted serious economic blows on the opponent.
Nestea - Jys G1 and G2 Clide - Leenock G1 and G3 Jinro most games Maka - Sleep G1 JSL - Kyrix G1 Hyperdub - Max G2 Alive - Zenio G1 and G2 Polt - Joon G2 MarineKing - 1 Rax Expo builds (which are not all-in) July - Alive G1 and G2
These games are mostly macro-oriented games. There are other games which I did not list which were more of early pressure into timing attack (which were not all ins) like MVP-Idra G1. Note that I never said that I was commentating on the state of the balance of TvZ match-up. I clearly stated that I am not expert on that. I am commenting that GSL 3 has had a lot of different TvZ builds some of which won while others lost. In this thread alone, multiple posters are said that they only see T's doing all-ins which is clearly not the case. It is not a Marine/SCV all-in fest (or even an all in fest). People are just having a selective memory of the games that are happening in GSL.
I think they're referring to the games that Terran are advancing upon are largely due to all-ins. Aka, Zergs are getting knocked out due to SCV marine all-ins. Could be wrong though. That's what I'd assume, but I don't have anything to back it up atm. Still though, it's undeniable the marine/SCV is still seeming to be a very dominant strategy employed.
the thing is... the marine/scv all-ins games yielded a much better winrate than the macro games (against zerg at least).
the whole 2 rax tvz issue simply shows the problems small maps create.
If you don't expand due to marine pressure, you'll fall even further behind. If the terran went mineral only and you are building spines on one base, he's going to take his natural before you do and there isn't going to be a thing you can do to stop it. I've had them set up bunkers right outside my base, and it takes a major investment both in money, and more importantly time, to break.
He's playing to win 87,000$, I don't see why he shouldn't use every trick in his arsenal. I'm a Zerg player and seeing marine all-in is boring, but it's Blizzard's job to "fix" it, not the player's job to play honorably in an 87k USD tournament.
On December 07 2010 03:53 LazE wrote: How could you blame a player for playing the way that he believes maximises his chance of winning? Isn't that the whole point of competition? Don't you think it would be sad if e.g. fruitdealer won the GSL because terrans were too polite to do a particular strategy?
As a spectator, I want strategies like this to become rare. But I think that will only happen if players learn to play well enough against them that they're not worth doing, or Blizzard manages to patch the game so it's not worth doing.
iv been buying the GSL season tickets and love the excitement the quick pushes bring to the matches. Some engagements have the zerg just holding it by the skin of his teeth to either punish the other player for it or to setup his macro. Its one of the many things i think people make a big deal of that this is currently something that is going on and popular but within sometime people will understand it more counter it and be better for it. I feel in no way upset over rains play i think hes in a big tourney hes smart and he did what it takes to win like a real champion. Next season they will easily have my money with the hopes of even more close matches with tight pressure in either match up.
JSL - Kyrix Game1: Fast expo Game2: Fast factory/port followed by tank cliff drop
MarineKing - Nexline Did not happen
Leenock - Clide Game1: Fast expo Game2: Thor drop on cliff Game3: Fast expo
Hyperdub - Max Game1: Proxy 2 Rax + base Rax + bunker at natural (did not bring SCVs) Game2: Fast expo Game3: Bunker block
Alive - Zenio Game1: Expo into Marine/Tank push (Macro game) Game2: Blue flame hellions into macro game
Polt - Joon Game1: 3 Reapers into Expo in Timing Push Game2: Reactor Hellions into macro game
Jinro - Drug Game1: Marine-hellions into Tank cliff drop Game2: Two Rax pressure into Expo into macro game
Moon - ButterflyEffect Game1: E-bay block into single Hellion/Basnhee into MMM timing push Game2: 1 base reaper into macro Game3: 2 Rax pressure to force lings into Marine/Tank
Check - Destination Game1: Early Stim/Fast expo into 5 rax MM Game2: Reaper into 5 Rax mass marine allin
RO32
Bitbybit - NewDawn Game1: 2 Rax Marine/SCV allin Game2: 2 port basnhee into some weird everything all-in
Fruitdealer - Sc Game1: 2 Rax + bunker block into macro Game2: Expansion build Game3: Macro game
Ret - Best Game1: 1 Barracks FE into macro game Game2: Marine/Hellion/Medivac harass into 2 port banshees Game3: MMM 1-base all-in (SCVs not pulled)
MarineKing - Monster Game1: 1 rax expo into mass MM Game2: Marine/SCV attack into MM (not sure how many SCV's pulled i.e. allin or not) Game3: 2 Rax marine pressure into expand into 4 rax marine attack
July - Alive Game1: Hellion harass into macro game Game2: Attempted 4 marine/1 hellion harass into expo
Jinro - Moon Game1: Fast expo into macro game Game2: 4 Marine/1 hellion harass into m acro game
MVP-Idra Game1: Early marine pressure into Expo into macro game Game2: 2 Rax + bunker block Game3: 2 Rax marine pressure into expo into MM stim timing attack
Ro16
BitbyBite - FD AFAIK, both games were Marine/SCV allins
NesTea - Maka have yet to watch these games and no summaries available
MarineKing - Leenock have yet to watch these games and no summaries available
People, in general, seem to be exaggerating the amount of games involving Marine/SCV all-ins. Only Bitbybit and TSL_Rain have used that strategy on a regular basis. Apart from that we have seen a wide range of strategies/builds employed be terrans which have a healthy mix of bunker block/early game pressure/timing attacks/expo builds. The SCV allins seemed to have worked better for the two players who used it while other people got eliminated. This might be coincidental or cor-relational on which I am no expert to comment.
Unfortunately, the community seems to have a short-term memory and can only remember the latest few series. For e.g., if the Clide-Leenock series had happened in Ro8 swapping places with Rain-NesTea series, a big chunk of the same community which is now heralding this GSL as the worst would have said it is the best GSL till date. I am not debating the TvZ balance issues but debating the overall quality of the games in this GSL will be at par with the games in previous GSL but people tend to give weightage to later rounds which skews the 'quality' of this GSL.
You conveniently left out the maps that the games were played on, among other details.
On December 07 2010 15:32 FabledIntegral wrote: What? The ones that aren't marine/scv all-ins are those plays that rely on not being scouted (aka can never become standard). The rest are almost exclusively timing attacks that are essentially all-in. And guess what. The others that do heavy tank marine play are the ones that do fine... up until they can't transition at all into the late game! Which is the entire point! As the game progresses, it starts tipping in the favor of Zerg, assuming neither side inflicted serious economic blows on the opponent.
Nestea - Jys G1 and G2 Clide - Leenock G1 and G3 Jinro most games Maka - Sleep G1 JSL - Kyrix G1 Hyperdub - Max G2 Alive - Zenio G1 and G2 Polt - Joon G2 MarineKing - 1 Rax Expo builds (which are not all-in) July - Alive G1 and G2
These games are mostly macro-oriented games. There are other games which I did not list which were more of early pressure into timing attack (which were not all ins) like MVP-Idra G1. Note that I never said that I was commentating on the state of the balance of TvZ match-up. I clearly stated that I am not expert on that. I am commenting that GSL 3 has had a lot of different TvZ builds some of which won while others lost. In this thread alone, multiple posters are said that they only see T's doing all-ins which is clearly not the case. It is not a Marine/SCV all-in fest (or even an all in fest). People are just having a selective memory of the games that are happening in GSL.
Interesting. You conveniently left out the maps in your post too! Also, other major details such as the lengths of the games and who won.
On December 07 2010 14:48 FataLe wrote: Wait I don't get it?
MKP does it 1/2 his games? Baller.
Rain does it 1/2 his games and apologizes? Noob.
To me, Rain played it perfectly as a competitor and not as an entertainer. He came to win, he won, how is irrelevant.
MKP lost to Nestea in the end, Zergs are ok with that therefore he is baller / best player ever / a proper Terran player with great skill.
Rain knocked out Nestea and FD lost right after (to Toss "cheese"lololo) therefore Zerg fanboys butthurt and Rain is a scrub / noob / bronze.
I think Incontrol said something similar in a SotG ages ago half jokingly but probably with lots of truth behind it regarding how Artosis & Idra react to losing / winning games.
Of course I wouldn't blame Rain for doing whatever he can to win. But of course Blizzard balance team should take the blame here. Terran has overtaken Protoss as the EZ mode race with that cheesy all in builds + bunker cheese. oh god i mean seriously? After all these nerfs Terran is still..... well this is ridiculous.
How am I supposed to live with myself as a Terran PLAYER!!! RAHHH!!! oh wait
On December 07 2010 15:32 FabledIntegral wrote: What? The ones that aren't marine/scv all-ins are those plays that rely on not being scouted (aka can never become standard). The rest are almost exclusively timing attacks that are essentially all-in. And guess what. The others that do heavy tank marine play are the ones that do fine... up until they can't transition at all into the late game! Which is the entire point! As the game progresses, it starts tipping in the favor of Zerg, assuming neither side inflicted serious economic blows on the opponent.
Nestea - Jys G1 and G2 Clide - Leenock G1 and G3 Jinro most games Maka - Sleep G1 JSL - Kyrix G1 Hyperdub - Max G2 Alive - Zenio G1 and G2 Polt - Joon G2 MarineKing - 1 Rax Expo builds (which are not all-in) July - Alive G1 and G2
These games are mostly macro-oriented games. There are other games which I did not list which were more of early pressure into timing attack (which were not all ins) like MVP-Idra G1. Note that I never said that I was commentating on the state of the balance of TvZ match-up. I clearly stated that I am not expert on that. I am commenting that GSL 3 has had a lot of different TvZ builds some of which won while others lost. In this thread alone, multiple posters are said that they only see T's doing all-ins which is clearly not the case. It is not a Marine/SCV all-in fest (or even an all in fest). People are just having a selective memory of the games that are happening in GSL.
I think they're referring to the games that Terran are advancing upon are largely due to all-ins. Aka, Zergs are getting knocked out due to SCV marine all-ins. Could be wrong though. That's what I'd assume, but I don't have anything to back it up atm. Still though, it's undeniable the marine/SCV is still seeming to be a very dominant strategy employed.
the thing is... the marine/scv all-ins games yielded a much better winrate than the macro games (against zerg at least).
the whole 2 rax tvz issue simply shows the problems small maps create.
now im no expert but i think its kinda nesteas fault for trying to go 14 hatch every game. its a little too greedy and as idra found out at MLG dallas its not really very safe. but thats just how i see it, take it with a grain of salt.
I don't claim to know enough about the game to speak authoritatively on balance. I can say that it is ridiculous for people to blame Rain for winning in the manner in which he did.
I'm interested in Starcraft as a genuine contest. I not going pay $20 for tampered games.
I find it hilarious that people actually believe that hatch first is the best way to defend from early pressure. How can the most economical start also be the strongest defensively? it makes no sense at all and no one with a brain is gonna believe that to be true. Maybe us protoss should start arguing that 15 nexus is the strongest early defense we can have and then when we start losing we ask for nerfs to the other races cause they're obviously overpowered.
I do want to see longer games though, i want more of a defensive advantage like there is in scbw but at the moment we don't have that so you can't play sc2 as you do scbw and that is true for all three races.
Because of all those crying guys GOM people will be afraid to lose customers and will set a 'no rush 5' rule... When they'll do this you'll have all the reasons to cry It's called a STRATEGY game guys a player will do everything in order to win and not providing beautiful games
There's 82k on the line... of course any competitive player will play to win, not play to entertain the masses...
If you have a very high, say 80%, chance at winning a game if you attack RIGHT NOW, why would you not do so? Especially when you know later on in the game the chance of winning can only go down towards 50%..
On December 07 2010 16:02 xenofox wrote: Who says the hatch needs to be at your expo if larvae are the issue?
Because then you'll end up with marines at your ramp, in a choke point, with bunkers building at the bottom of the ramp, while Terran's income is higher than yours due to mules, and his probably taking his expo.
Hatch first in your own base is not the solution!
Why not 14 hatch in your base right at the ramp and then immediately follow it up with a couple of spine crawlers right there? It seems like the crawlers would resolve the bunker contain issue and you wouldn't even have to make many zerglings, but it's just a thought. Comments?
Nope. bunker block is not for keeping zerg in the base whole time. Terran will leave your ramp way before than your hatch in main will finish. Damage is already done. From that point terran will just make 1base timing push or expand then 2 base timing push. Either way zerg has little chance to catchup and survive.
Putting two spine crawlers is the worst thing you can do . If anything would work, its nydus network from one base which fails most of the time, or mass ling/baneling, which also has small chance to win. As soon as terran scans your base he will just make a cloaked banshee and wallof.
On December 07 2010 17:09 pezit wrote: I find it hilarious that people actually believe that hatch first is the best way to defend from early pressure. How can the most economical start also be the strongest defensively? it makes no sense at all and no one with a brain is gonna believe that to be true. Maybe us protoss should start arguing that 15 nexus is the strongest early defense we can have and then when we start losing we ask for nerfs to the other races cause they're obviously overpowered.
I do want to see longer games though, i want more of a defensive advantage like there is in scbw but at the moment we don't have that so you can't play sc2 as you do scbw and that is true for all three races.
why do you doubt others when you simply dont understand Z at all?
reason why a hatch first is good at holding most of these pushes:
- creep. without creep you cant use queens, nonspeed lings and banes are completly useless - no creep no spinecrawler - additional larva for defensive units - push hits a established hatch with creep + queen + maybe a crawler instead of a naked morphing hatch -gives something to fall back on
creep is insanely important to a Z. and you simply ignore that a hatch is a production building.
not to talk about all the midgame issues you might have if the push doesnt come and your enemy just pokes and expands. but ofc it depends on the timing and what kind of rush it is (a 14 hatch obv isnt gonna do better when he just comes with his first 4 marines and all scvs)
I don't think it should be a matter of "Since I am paying to watch, no one should be allowed to cheese so I can see the long games I want to." First off some people enjoy watching cheese so that logic is already flawed, but more importantly it is about players trying to win in a high stakes competition.
That being said, I do agree that something needs to be done so that when a zerg player sees "oh, they are going to cheese me" that they have a significant advantage. I don't know if it is a balance issue or a play style issue, but something seems to be wrong.
It feels that it is more likely to be a balance issue simply because there hasn't been an solutions yet. I won't pretend like a month is a long time, but it should be enough for at least one notable player to come up with a strong counter to the terran all ins, but it could also be both.
Using the best stratagy available means you are actually using your head and not playing to appease the masses.
I would much rather these be legit fights of life and death instead of trying to drawout the matches and do "entertaining games" ala pro-wrestling style....
But I guess that's what you have to accept in the age of internet raging.
First of all, all-ins have been part of every single RTS game I've played. Old school Warcraft II, SC, AOE, Rise of Nations, Supreme Commander etc. They're a plague but hardly new. They're a part of RTS games.
Secondly, players like NesTea have obviously not perfected defensive micro. Stuff like letting the bunker "live" when they could have killed it and so on. I don't think you can whine about an all-in when you're defense is lackluster.
You know it's a sad day in sports (or e-sports) when you have to apologize for winning. Seriously, it really is sad. Why so much hate on the player? I really can't believe the nerve of some people who come here and post about how THEY can't believe that people are defending Rain. Seriously? Cut the guy some slack.
As Herm Edwards infamously said: You play to win the game.
While the manner in which he said it was mocked, the truth of his words still hold.
I see this in a similar way to how Morrow won IEM against Idra. If you remember afterward Morrow said 5rax reaper is too powerful in a kind of apologetic manner.
Rain does not need to apologize for using the tools given to him to its full, but it is good that he understands that there is something wrong with this opening and tells that to everyone. I see this apology as his way of doing so.
As for all of you screaming this is normal, I am sure many were screaming the same before SCVs or roaches were nerfed in Beta, and I know many were screaming the same before reapers were nerfed. Also, lets not forget how early marines own protoss as well.
Maybe, just maybe some Zergs find a good counter to this, but I feel just like reapers none will be had and this will need to be solved by Blizzard.
At the moment this is hurting the spectator side of Sc2. I for one lost all interest in watching ZvT games and I am a zerg player even. And I am sure I am not the only one.
Also you all need to know that Zergs are again not doing good in tournaments. In EU and NA they are getting stomped, and now in GSL none in Ro4. Unlike toss that didn't get to ro4 in GSL1&2 but were still winning or doing good in tournaments in EU and NA!!
balance isn't really the issue even though army+worker allins are pretty stupid, it's about two things:
1. bad blizz maps, period. just check out the two best sets of the gsl 3, mc vs july and clide vs leenock 3rd sets, both on shakuras, coincidence ?
1a-2. greedy zerg, ye, don't fe all the time, true, it's been called a million times, when the maps are the way they are, don't be that greedy all the time, or if you are, be prepared to hold it, like ret and idra were for ex. (before map positions kicked in, hur-hur)
as for the qq on nestea being the better player or not seeing what you wanted to see for your season ticket, WHAT? all i gotta say is e-sports , sports, yes, you know, sometimes your favorite loses, sometimes your favorite team plays like shit when you go to the stadium, it's how it goes, you can opt to not support them, not buy tickets, that's it
On December 07 2010 17:21 Chicane wrote: I don't think it should be a matter of "Since I am paying to watch, no one should be allowed to cheese so I can see the long games I want to."
No, it's actually a matter of "This is bullshit. I won't pay even 0.99 to watch this until this stops.".
Put yourself in the place of a casual viewer who does not play the game and only watches free VODs. "Let's check marineking vs leenock: cheese. OK, there may be better games. Let's check HongUn vs Naya: Cheese. Well, still there may be better games. Rain vs NesTea: cheese. I don't even understand why these players so called leenock, naya and NesTea play that race. They can pick the other races and cheese their way to 100m. And you know what, this cheese stopped being fun. I'm out of here."
On "good marine micro": What is good marine micro ffs? Split marines and drink water until marines kill everything? (foxer vs leenock, shakuras plateau) Good marine micro is what you see on Flash vs Soulkey. Or, if we're talking about good micro and not for the particular example of marines, you can watch Bisu vs Kal (STX vs SKT, Proleague R2 season 2010-2011, ace match) and cry "holy fucking shit" all the way you want when you see Kal's shuttle micro and shield battery usage.
Yes, there is cheese in BW as well, but cheese is not the most and only viable option in any particular match up.
[ 1a-2. greedy zerg, ye, don't fe all the time, true, it's been called a million times, when the maps are the way they are, don't be that greedy all the time, or if you are, be prepared to hold it, like ret and idra were for ex. (before map positions kicked in, hur-hur)
Once agian 14 Hatch is if not the safest one of the safest builds for zerg, it's not a greedy build at all, Zerg needs the creep spread.
I guess it all comes down to if Zergs actually think 14-Hatch consistently wins against 2-Rax. If it does, good for them and no one should criticize a winning strategy. If it doesn't, then it's no wonder why people want to see other strategies attempted because a build that consistently loses isn't "safe".
The hatch isn't what's greedy, the hatch is the safe part of the build because Zerg relies on opening up the choke (if the second hatch is placed above the ramp, then a T army can contain on the ramp and Zerg loses in midgame), having creep and having larva.
What's been greedy has been larva/drone usage. If people want to understand Z better, they should read Day9's article on the Economy of Larva. Execution obviously plays a big role but most of the Zs that dropped due to 2Rax did not conserve larva or were late/misplaced their Spine Crawlers.
It might still be an issue, but it's not something you can judge solely from GSL games because the Zs have not been executing properly.
For a shot at >$80 000 I'd do whatever it takes. Good on him for playing to win. It's $80000 people. Eighty THOUSAND dollars. EIGHTY THOUSAND....DOLLARS.
Anyone who's going to sabotage themselves "for the good of spectating" is an idiot. Anyone who says they'd rather do that is also an idiot, and probably lying.
What's been greedy has been larva/drone usage. If people want to understand Z better, they should read Day9's article on the Economy of Larva. Execution obviously plays a big role but most of the Zs that dropped due to 2Rax did not conserve larva or were late/misplaced their Spine Crawlers.
Yeah. How many Zergs have we seen producing full out drones when they know that the opponent has his army intact, thus an attack is possible. They do this because if that attack does not come, then they are very ahead in economy but, it is a risk, as it should.
On December 07 2010 23:51 Jibba wrote: The hatch isn't what's greedy, the hatch is the safe part of the build because Zerg relies on opening up the choke (if the second hatch is placed above the ramp, then a T army can contain on the ramp and Zerg loses in midgame), having creep and having larva.
What's been greedy has been larva/drone usage. If people want to understand Z better, they should read Day9's article on the Economy of Larva. Execution obviously plays a big role but most of the Zs that dropped due to 2Rax did not conserve larva or were late/misplaced their Spine Crawlers.
It might still be an issue, but it's not something you can judge solely from GSL games because the Zs have not been executing properly.
this is exactly true, Hatch first itself isnt a greedy build. The zergs are greedy because they all want to drone like crazy and not have to build roaches or zerglings in any number until 7-8mins. Why? because they have a very high chance to win if they drone like crazy and arent harassed. A zerg will jump like 40 food ahead after his natural is saturated, with no harassament.
Jibba definitly has it right, zergs can still 14 hatch, they just need to be much more conservative with their drone production if they want to hold these early pushes.
If 14 expand hatch is the safest build, then something should change. A fast hatchery should be risky but give the best economic rewards. Just like 14 Nexus. So maybe increase the hatch cost but reduce the build time plus buff pool first builds in some way (Faster queen build time)?
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
Actually it is quite impossible to beat since u have to go 14 hatch and 14 hatch is an auto-lose vs scv/marine all in as we saw on steppes of war.
well see here's the thing.
You don't HAVE to go hatch first. I repeat, you do not HAVE to hatch first. Hatch first is a build designed to give an edge over the opponent right away. If he leaves you alone he is behind, period. Pool first into Hatchery is a lot safer but doesn't give you that edge straight away.
I would also like to state the record that most zergs nowadays don't scout with a drone if they go hatch first or plan to. If you send in an overlord in one direction and a drone at 9 in the other, you will scout both the bases in roughly the same time, leaving only the far away cross-position base unscouted. This gives you a 66% chance of scouting what he is doing for only a couple of minerals lost.
I am absolutely baffled when I watch progamers not scouting with a drone when they go hatchery first. Its like the riskiest opening you can open up with but they still believe that the 100 mineral over 2 minutes gained by keeping the drone mining is better than scouting that proxy barracks/forge first sooner which will completely destroy hatch first builds.
I can't fanthom why zergs nowadays think you have to hatch first. Infact, since most of the terrans go for aggressive economy punishing builds, its an advantage if you go pool first since you can hold off the aggression more easily.
For the record, I'm around 1800 diamond zerg ( not like it matters ) who goes pool first vs terran and dronescout on 9, and I still win a lot of my games.
You do have to go hatch first. Pool first gets u auto-lose if your opponent reacts correctly. Why do u think Nestea went for hatch first every single game ?
See, Nestea lost because this game isn`t balanced yet :/
What's been greedy has been larva/drone usage. If people want to understand Z better, they should read Day9's article on the Economy of Larva. Execution obviously plays a big role but most of the Zs that dropped due to 2Rax did not conserve larva or were late/misplaced their Spine Crawlers.
Yeah. How many Zergs have we seen producing full out drones when they know that the opponent has his army intact, thus an attack is possible. They do this because if that attack does not come, then they are very ahead in economy but, it is a risk, as it should.
If a zerg produces drones non-stop, it's only slightly faster than a command center, and even SLOWER than a c-boosted nexus. Until a queen is out, if we are not droning, we are behind the other races, which is very bad doing into mid-game. After a queen is out, yes, some larva should almost always be tagged for units, but when you are on 1-2 hatcheries and no queen, it's a very fine line.
On December 08 2010 00:03 Darpa wrote: Why? because they have a very high chance to win if they drone like crazy and arent harassed. A zerg will jump like 40 food ahead after his natural is saturated, with no harassament.
That's what we've seen for the most part, besides Clide/Leenock or Maka vs. Nestea g2 (this is the ideal game to watch perfect drone production, imo.) People go crazy when July or FD roll a passive T with a fast 200 army, but the reason they can do that is the exact same reason they can get taken out by 2rax play.
If one player is good at the mid- and late-game(NesTea), why shouldn't the lesser player(Rain) force a decision in the early game? If your opponent has the high ground, don't attack from low ground...
And the to voices regarding Korean(!) Terrans cheesy style: depot before rax is enough counter to that. someday the other races will learn to deal with that style -> ever shifting meta game
On December 08 2010 00:07 Thrombozyt wrote: If 14 expand hatch is the safest build, then something should change. A fast hatchery should be risky but give the best economic rewards. Just like 14 Nexus. So maybe increase the hatch cost but reduce the build time plus buff pool first builds in some way (Faster queen build time)?
The races operate on completely different mechanics. >.> This is akin to comparing Broodlords and Carriers, since they're both tier 3.5 tech. If the hatch isn't up early, then it's not going up for a very long time and the zerg is forced to 1 base, The same was true in BW for a very long time. You 3 hatch for the larva.
Maybe there needs to be a way to make pool first aggression more viable like it was in BW, but I can only see that happening with a buff to zerglings.
What's been greedy has been larva/drone usage. If people want to understand Z better, they should read Day9's article on the Economy of Larva. Execution obviously plays a big role but most of the Zs that dropped due to 2Rax did not conserve larva or were late/misplaced their Spine Crawlers.
Yeah. How many Zergs have we seen producing full out drones when they know that the opponent has his army intact, thus an attack is possible. They do this because if that attack does not come, then they are very ahead in economy but, it is a risk, as it should.
If a zerg produces drones non-stop, it's only slightly faster than a command center, and even SLOWER than a c-boosted nexus. Until a queen is out, if we are not droning, we are behind the other races, which is very bad doing into mid-game. After a queen is out, yes, some larva should almost always be tagged for units, but when you are on 1-2 hatcheries and no queen, it's a very fine line.
If Z can find a "safe" period between early-mid, then that's when they'd ideally power and catch up on drones. That's why I referenced the Maka vs. Nestea g2. Obviously without replays, we don't know for sure, but I assume Maka's SCV production is nearly perfect and as soon as Nestea is secured, he was able to power and pass him in workers.
On December 08 2010 00:08 UFO wrote: You do have to go hatch first. Pool first gets u auto-lose if your opponent reacts correctly. Why do u think Nestea went for hatch first every single game ?
Why do you think July goes pool and gas first? Everyone can play the game you just did and say you will auto-lose by doing this or that. I think you`re all wrong by saying random junk like that.
What's been greedy has been larva/drone usage. If people want to understand Z better, they should read Day9's article on the Economy of Larva. Execution obviously plays a big role but most of the Zs that dropped due to 2Rax did not conserve larva or were late/misplaced their Spine Crawlers.
Yeah. How many Zergs have we seen producing full out drones when they know that the opponent has his army intact, thus an attack is possible. They do this because if that attack does not come, then they are very ahead in economy but, it is a risk, as it should.
If a zerg produces drones non-stop, it's only slightly faster than a command center, and even SLOWER than a c-boosted nexus. Until a queen is out, if we are not droning, we are behind the other races, which is very bad doing into mid-game. After a queen is out, yes, some larva should almost always be tagged for units, but when you are on 1-2 hatcheries and no queen, it's a very fine line.
With a queen of course. Just seeing my opponents build 10 drones at once and then qqing because they die to a push they knew was possibly going to come is silly.
I don't even do the 2 rax thing, just play macro mech. Obviously the top, top players manage their larvae quite good but, in mid-high diamond...jeez.. they either build only drones or only attack units. Someone should write a book on playing Zerg lol.
On December 08 2010 00:08 UFO wrote: You do have to go hatch first. Pool first gets u auto-lose if your opponent reacts correctly. Why do u think Nestea went for hatch first every single game ?
Why do you think July goes pool and gas first? Everyone can play the game you just did and say you will auto-lose by doing this or that. I think you`re all wrong by saying random junk like that.
Alivefou did not 2 rax against July though, saying July's (speedling expand) opener was good would be like saying Moon's opener vs. Jinro was good even though Jinro didn't 2 rax either. You don't how July would have dealt with 2 rax because it actually didn't happen.
Man... how could he apologize to some bunch of nerds that would do the same shit while playing a better player. I would tell them they can **** my balls, I want my 85 grand no matter what. I think he will play worse in his next match just because things like this affect him, he will be afraid to cheese, go macro, try to put on a show and loose. gg.
Thank you for bringing the topic to the west. I'm also happy to see that most answers were reasonable.
My personal input on this is simple: improving overall strategic knowledge of players 'versus' better spectacle for viewers.
Experiencing workers as a viable military force in high level play is a valuable experience for players. In time, it improves the overall level of skill in a way that can even contribute to further gain from the spectacle point of view.
On the other hand, holding off change to assure a good spectacle hardly improves the overall strategic knowledge or micromanagment from players.
Maybe there needs to be a way to make pool first aggression more viable like it was in BW, but I can only see that happening with a buff to zerglings.
The smart way would be to increase zergling speed, and decrease the gain from metabolic boost to maintain parity. Though it reduces the value of the upgrade.
Zerg had a tough time, they found a way to compete with terran. A patch came out, putting zerg slightly ahead. Terran had a tough time, they now found a way to compete with zerg. Now zerg has to figure out how to compete with terran.
We can just ask for something to nerf terran so zerg can do their thing, cuz then zerg will be OP and terrans will cry. Of course, as well all know from proven facts, the map pool sucks ass from a straw. I dont even think we can talk about race balance nor can we blame terran players for doing this, they do it cuz they can, cuz blizzard let them do so. SC2 will make more sense when serious maps are available.
Maybe there needs to be a way to make pool first aggression more viable like it was in BW, but I can only see that happening with a buff to zerglings.
The smart way would be to increase zergling speed, and decrease the gain from metabolic boost to maintain parity. Though it reduces the value of the upgrade.
Pool first is already viable in both ZvZ and ZvP.
The problem has to do with Marines being FREAKING AWESOME in this game.
On December 08 2010 00:08 UFO wrote: You do have to go hatch first. Pool first gets u auto-lose if your opponent reacts correctly. Why do u think Nestea went for hatch first every single game ?
Why do you think July goes pool and gas first? Everyone can play the game you just did and say you will auto-lose by doing this or that. I think you`re all wrong by saying random junk like that.
Alivefou did not 2 rax against July though, saying July's (speedling expand) opener was good would be like saying Moon's opener vs. Jinro was good even though Jinro didn't 2 rax either. You don't how July would have dealt with 2 rax because it actually didn't happen.
Actually, I won`t even pretend I know enough about TvZ to make a good judgment about whether these marine pushes/rushes are imba or not. The whole point of my post was just to show the terrible illogical whining in the post I quoted. He had Nestea as an example, I had July. July didn`t autolose against what was thrown at him. The post I quoted is pretty much the equivalent of saying the Marshall Attack in chess is an autoloss because you lose a pawn.
I think people are using their emotions way to much in passing judgement on game balance, that`s all.
On December 08 2010 03:35 Dagyar wrote: The smart way would be to increase zergling speed, and decrease the gain from metabolic boost to maintain parity. Though it reduces the value of the upgrade
That might mess up ZvP and take away a lot of the pressure Stalkers can do before zergling speed finishes. I don`t think making Tosses struggle even harder putting legit early pressure on zerg is the way to go. They have many good timing pushes against zerg, but very few good early game pressures that isn`t completely all-in.
It's sad to see so many terrans thinking against zerg you 'can't' go to a mid or late game...maybe that mentality is holding terran play back. Jinro has gone into the mid and late game against zerg and did just fine. So obviously it's more then possible if you're not wasting army on ill timed pushes.
SCV all ins requie little skill or even planning to setup, zerg is likely to know there is a 2 rax, but just blindly preparing for an all in that doesn't come puts you behind. That's the problem I personally have with SCV marine all ins. They can come and potentially crush you with an SCV soft wall, or they can feign it you prepare anyway then play a macro game and get way ahead.
Simply building 2 barracks quickly shouldn't give you a strategic advantage that early in the game. Zerg has to either prepar and risk the mid to late game, or risk dieing to the push if it comes...on top of that tarren can drop a scan before he pushes and decide if it's worth pushing or not.
This does not seem like proper game balance to me.
Has nothing to do with lategamephobia by TvZ Terrans, scv all ins are too good to pass out in these small shitty warcraft 3-style maps made by Blizzard.
I think you do need to keep up a constant threat, at least, to keep the Zerg from getting out of hand. An unperturbed 2-base/2-queen Zerg can make workers at the pace of like 5+ command centers, right?
Practice will probably kill the 2-rax all-in, but 2-rax pressure into expand builds feel very nice and are good for spectators too.
As a 1700 diamond level zerg has to deal with these kind of all-ins all the time. It's a huge part of the game and I win about 50% of the time, even though I know about it 90% of the time. I can't say I think its fun to play, and it surely isn't fun to watch if it happens to often. I am okay with cheese, it can be exciting to watch, but if its scouted it should be significantly more difficult to be successful. In this regard I think Protoss and Zerg are fine as they are, but Terran has the mule. The mule is the ultimate cheese weapon.
If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
It is not a players job to make things entertaining, this is not the World Wrestling Federation (or WWE as its called now).
Is Kobe Bryant suppose to tie one of his hands behind his back so the Laker games are more entertaining?
Is Lionel Messi suppose to cut off one of his legs to make Barcelona matches more entertaining?
Is Al Pacino suppose to take massive amounts of crack/cocaine so that other actors have a chance to win the Oscars?
Was Michael Jackson suppose to stop dancing alltogether in the 80's cause nobody else came close to him?
GOM needs to pick or even create better maps that will suit a more entertaining game, and Blizzard simply needs to continue balancing the game so that it keeps improving.
If i was Rain i wouldnt say anything, and just focus on winning, not entertaining. "Haters gon' hate" applies to real life too.
If I fight a huge guy on the street and I kick him on the balls, its not my fault for doing that, but its his fault for having them... It gives me a better chance of winning the fight so why wouldnt I use that strategy?
On December 08 2010 04:33 Unleashed wrote: If I fight a huge guy on the street and I kick him on the balls, its not my fault for doing that, but its his fault for having them... It gives me a better chance of winning the fight so why wouldnt I use that strategy?
you are supposed to hit them where it hurts in trying to win. fair game in my book.
TvZ is kind of imba. And even more so depending on the map. There are already such severe problems bogging down the entertainment of the tournament that I think it is not the players who are to be blamed.
1. It is moronic for Rain to not apply early pressure on Nestea. 2. Rain didn't ALL IN on xel naga (one of the more balanced maps). You saw he was expanding and constructing more production facilities while he was at it and slowly out-teching Nestea. He simply outplayed Nestea and Nestea crumbled, then fell behind. 3. Next time GomTV should pick better maps, or get to work on creating a balanced map pool. 4. GomTV should get the pros to start making balance contributions and forwarding it to Blizz. 5. Blizz should stop trying to balance the game around 4v4s or other team games. It is ruining 1v1.
On December 08 2010 04:33 Unleashed wrote: If I fight a huge guy on the street and I kick him on the balls, its not my fault for doing that, but its his fault for having them... It gives me a better chance of winning the fight so why wouldnt I use that strategy?
Yes, it gives more chances for you to win a fight on the street. But, I don't respect anyone who does this even on a street fight, I don't even treat that guy as a man and I diss his self respect. And I'm not the only person who has this opinion (come to Turkey and ask anyone who has a self respect about kicking someone in the balls).
Same applies for SCV allins as well, at least for me.
I don't understand all this because pretty sure SlayerS_'BoxeR' our good emperor won a very large amount of his games doing all-ins or cheesing and the fans loved it...refering to Starcraft B-Dub o'course.
Also TSL_Rain tried macro games against Nestea if anyone was actually watching all the game and as they would have noticed it didn't get him anywhere because all Nestea had to do was fly around with the mutas a bit,mass banelings and 1a to victory making Rain look like a chump.
Rain may still look like a chump but at least he won and that's all that counts. If you want to see games where people fail trying to simply impress people and throwing away thousands of dollars then what you really want is match fixing so suck it up. he played strategically smart against his macro based opponent.
On December 08 2010 04:33 Unleashed wrote: If I fight a huge guy on the street and I kick him on the balls, its not my fault for doing that, but its his fault for having them... It gives me a better chance of winning the fight so why wouldnt I use that strategy?
you are supposed to hit them where it hurts in trying to win. fair game in my book.
shame on you lol!
seriously though, it takes tremendous courage to make a public apology (as long as he means it). Although his play is not admirable, you have to give him at least some points for PR. But in terms of e-sports, your play speaks a thousand times more than your words. So if rain shows a long macro series in the Ro4 it would mean a lot more than this public apology.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
You have no clue about the game ("super greedy") yet give advice to one of the best zergs in the world.
The combination doesn't really work well together. Maybe you shouldn't give advice. Or learn something about the game.
The truth is GSL players aren't going to change their playing habits to entertain the viewer, these people practice and play hours a day to win and make money, not to get foreign fan boys. Cheese is a part of this game and plenty of people are known as good players who do mostly play gimmiky. IMO he doesn't have to apologize for anything, it's not like you see capoch apologizing when he does 4 gate in every game of a series. If a strat works then use it and if you make a few enemies on the way so be it. You're talking about thousands of dollars made each round you climb at this stage in the bracket. Most players are remembered for winning tourneys and beating known players, not for the awesome macro game they had in the RO64 but ended up losing the series and was knocked out.
I don't see a reason for Rain to apologize, he won. These are grown adults playing a game as their job for money. Once you get to that point, I don't think you need to apologize for anything in game unless you break the rules. And cheesing is squarely within the rules.
The outcry should be that terrans are forced into this style of play in order to avoid a late game macro war they inevitably lose.
Like someone in this thread alluded to earlier, anything less than going all out to win is simply entertainment, not competition. If i was rain my only statement on the game vs nestea would be "brb spending my money"
..and i object to it even being called cheese.Let us call it what it is - an attack by offensive units from production facilities. If it's OP that's blizzards problem, not the players.
If your going to cheese/all-in in the biggest starcraft 2 tournament ever and not have any confidence in it, gah, what a lame guy for apologizing, and not having the confidence to do what he thinks is the respectable thing to do
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
True but it's very hard to defend against this type of all-in.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
I'm not a fan of Terran game-play either, but it's ridiculous that a pro-gamer caves into the incessant whining of the Zerg community. Rain SHOULD be ashamed, not for his tactics but FOR APOLOGIZING that he used them! Do you think a single Zerg apologized in Brood War for 4 pooling?
Edit:
On December 08 2010 15:05 Gotmog wrote: Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Oh forgot to address the above post which proves my point btw. Although “over a hundred” Zerg posts defends that the “greedy” build is the “safest against this push” it is not the opinion of the GSL commentators (i.e. Artosis) nor is evidenced by how other Zergs handled this through-out the tournament. As soon as you suspect the rush is coming, stop droning! Build spine crawlers and lings - defense - just like every other race has to when they FE! Elementary my dear Watson!
LOL, what the fuck. Did he cheat? Did he do something that was banned from the tournament? Was it against good sportsmanship?
Do these players try to qualify for GSL to entertain the viewers, or do they perhaps do it to WIN THAT THING? Should Jinro apology if he wins because his opponent made a mistake? o_0 Always thought Starcraft was the game that you win by making fewer mistakes.
So this is either a balance issue or a Nestea issue, but why the hell should it be a Rain issue.
These are pro player on pro teams, they play to win tournaments, because you can't chow down some fans when you are hungry.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Bullshit. Cancel the hatch and build 12 lings or 3 spine crawlers. That should hold off the rush.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Bullshit. Cancel the hatch and build 12 lings or 3 spine crawlers. That should hold off the rush.
Right...that works! Then the terran will suicide up your ramp, not bunker contain you and get way way ahead... At least be reasonable.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Bullshit. Cancel the hatch and build 12 lings or 3 spine crawlers. That should hold off the rush.
I'm making up numbers here, but they're enough of a ballpark estimate to illustrate the point.
If you put the hatchery down with a spine crawler and save larva, you might have a 60% chance of losing to the marine/SCV attack 4 minutes into the game.
If you don't put the hatchery down and build 3 spine crawlers above your ramp instead, you'll survive the marine/SCV attack but will have a 100% chance of losing 10 minutes into the game.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Bullshit. Cancel the hatch and build 12 lings or 3 spine crawlers. That should hold off the rush.
I'm making up numbers here, but they're enough of a ballpark estimate to illustrate the point.
If you put the hatchery down with a spine crawler and save larva, you might have a 60% chance of losing to the marine/SCV attack 4 minutes into the game.
If you don't put the hatchery down and build 3 spine crawlers above your ramp instead, you'll survive the marine/SCV attack but will have a 100% chance of losing 10 minutes into the game.
Exactly. It's like saying in chat "I'm going 1 base with static defense, plz macro up and beat me"
as soon as T sees that he can cut marines and macro up and go tanks or whatever.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Bullshit. Cancel the hatch and build 12 lings or 3 spine crawlers. That should hold off the rush.
By doing that, guess what you're NOT doin bro. You're not building Drones. Your economy is going to be in shambles and that Terran contain as he expands is going to destroy you 10 minutes into the game.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Bullshit. Cancel the hatch and build 12 lings or 3 spine crawlers. That should hold off the rush.
I'm making up numbers here, but they're enough of a ballpark estimate to illustrate the point.
If you put the hatchery down with a spine crawler and save larva, you might have a 60% chance of losing to the marine/SCV attack 4 minutes into the game.
If you don't put the hatchery down and build 3 spine crawlers above your ramp instead, you'll survive the marine/SCV attack but will have a 100% chance of losing 10 minutes into the game.
You know you are basically saying that zerg is underpowered right? If zerg at best has a 40% chance of winning then you are kinda saying that either zerg is UP or terran is OP.
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
the pros (idra,ret,nestea) claim it is actually near impossible. so maybe you know better than them and should teach them the way of the samurai
On December 09 2010 10:48 Fwiffo wrote: I'm not a fan of Terran game-play either, but it's ridiculous that a pro-gamer caves into the incessant whining of the Zerg community. Rain SHOULD be ashamed, not for his tactics but FOR APOLOGIZING that he used them! Do you think a single Zerg apologized in Brood War for 4 pooling?
On December 08 2010 15:05 Gotmog wrote: Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Oh forgot to address the above post which proves my point btw. Although “over a hundred” Zerg posts defends that the “greedy” build is the “safest against this push” it is not the opinion of the GSL commentators (i.e. Artosis) nor is evidenced by how other Zergs handled this through-out the tournament. As soon as you suspect the rush is coming, stop droning! Build spine crawlers and lings - defense - just like every other race has to when they FE! Elementary my dear Watson!
I can't believe I'm defending Terran!
You're so ignorant on the matter.
1. Artosis has conceded his earlier beliefs about it not being the safest. So he's an awful person to use for your argument. 2. You don't drone at ALL at the beginning vs tworax. You literally are pumping Zerglings as fast as you can. However, after you have enough to push back a tworax, then you start droning. There's two times you can die. First is when you're NEVER droning and you're making lings asap, and then there's another in a later timing window when you start droning up again. It is during this time Zerg is playing blind, and you don't know whether or not Terran decided to expo (in which you'll be behind if you're still on like 17 drones and he has more harvesters + mules, or you'll be crushed by an all-in if you started droning again).
No it's not impossible to stop. But by god, you're suggestions about utterly ignorant. Amazing you say it's "elementary."
The marine/scv all-in has been around since pretty early in the beta. They nerfed SCV health partially because of it.
Really, it wasn't "too strong" until a high-profile Zerg lost to it. Or maybe it's because Terrans started doing it a lot after the more standard 1 rax FE started getting crushed a lot. Regardless, the build has been used for months and months, but has only become the new IMBA very recently.
On December 07 2010 03:20 regulator_mk wrote: Rain's apology makes sense to me. He's sorry you're not getting your $20 worth. But he's not about to give up thousands of dollars to make you feel better about your $20.
this. I also appreciate the apology. Hopefully we will see some better play out of him now that he's had a few more days to prep.
It's not hard to stop, Nestea brought it on himself for doing the ol' 14 hatch with no preparation. If he's really so great he can afford not getting a gigantic economy super quickly.
To those saying you cant play a macro style game agianst zerg as terran, just look at most of Jinro's games, especially his Ro32 against Moon. that Scrap game was wonderfully done.
On December 09 2010 13:34 Darkbane wrote: To those saying you cant play a macro style game agianst zerg as terran, just look at most of Jinro's games, especially his Ro32 against Moon. that Scrap game was wonderfully done.
Moon play like WC3 n00b, every average broodwar Zerg know that atack siege mode tanks and bunkers is suicide.
YGosu: In my opinion, there are too many All-in rushes in SC II, and a lot of games are decided by one major battle. What do you think about this?
IntotheRainbow: These days when top ranked players face each other, there’s way too much proxy barracks, proxy gates, zerg+baneling allins, etc. [. . .] For example, people have given me so much shit for doing the marine + mass SCV cheese rush, which means they’ve had to deal with it constantly, against many other opponents. It goes to show how strong that build is, if it keeps getting so much use. Even if you stop this all-in, it changes your late game considerably.
The build has been around forever. And it has only just been nerfed by the patches.
On December 09 2010 13:28 OmegaSyrus wrote: It's not hard to stop, Nestea brought it on himself for doing the ol' 14 hatch with no preparation. If he's really so great he can afford not getting a gigantic economy super quickly.
Nestea was greedy and he payed for it, being a pro Z player he knows what T can do during those early pivotal moments when Z is FE.
Rain had no reason to apologize, he played to win and he surely did. I prefer if it had been a macro game but a win is a win.
Well this is the problem Its not that nestea or other zerg cant defend this but at what cost? and i agree with darkbane, Terran can macro too 3 base terran is OP lol while they can defend their 3rd and so on xp easily Zerg cant
This is ridiculous, if scv + marine is not a reasonable strategy, then why not let stacraft 2 just have 10,000 minerals + 5,000 gas for each player at beginning so we can all "enjoy" macro game every time. Nestea's strategy had holes, shouldn't be too greedy and blame your opponent "cheese".
I think people need to realise that this style of play is not a balance issue at all.
If the probability of rain winning with an all in is greater then the probability of winning via a macro game he will all in more often regardless of balance.
e.g. lets pretend terran was incredibly overpowered. They win 80% of match at a macro level and 90% with all in cheese. guess what? People will still all in cheese. because your more likely to win. Its not a competition about morals. Its a competitive tournament.
If Blizzard are of the opinion that they prefer long macro style games, then change terran so macro is more effective then cheese. Relative overall balances between races is irrelevant.
On December 09 2010 14:39 ehalf wrote: This is ridiculous, if scv + marine is not a reasonable strategy, then why not let stacraft 2 just have 10,000 minerals + 5,000 gas for each player at beginning so we can all "enjoy" macro game every time. Nestea's strategy had holes, shouldn't be too greedy and blame your opponent "cheese".
Casual viewers don't understand when all of a sudden you bring your workers to battle as a meatshield. It doesn't look good, no one wants to watch it.
Average person has a basic understanding of war and battle. You don't bring your labor workers, suppliers, elders, wives or children to war.
14 gas/pool just allows for the Terran to wait and do an even stronger timing attack. Going 15 hatch gives you the early larva count to compete with the rush, 14 pool has a hole where you either over-produce and then the Terran backs off (giving them a huge advantage) or you don't produce enough and lose.
On December 09 2010 14:39 ehalf wrote: This is ridiculous, if scv + marine is not a reasonable strategy, then why not let stacraft 2 just have 10,000 minerals + 5,000 gas for each player at beginning so we can all "enjoy" macro game every time. Nestea's strategy had holes, shouldn't be too greedy and blame your opponent "cheese".
That's very ignorant. A Zerg player can know it is coming from the beginning of the game and still not be able to stop it without putting himself in a huge disadvantage, how is that fine? These types of strategies shouldn't be so powerful that they can win game after game. It's not good for the game, the players, or the spectators.
we cant get mad at players for doing what works... its like if we got mad at home run hitters in baseball because we want to watch more exciting out fielding.
Yeah can't blame the players when money is on the line, and quite a bit of it as they advance to later rounds.
Perhaps drop the attack speed of marines by a small amount and then increase their stim attack speed by the same amount? Keeps marines as the heavy hitters they are while slightly lowering their early cheese ability.
Other options include mule or scv changes, but those would affect other facets of the game besides just the first four minutes.
On December 07 2010 05:20 University wrote: It's absurd to blame professional gamers for using boring, successful strategies. They are not here to entertain us, nor are they here to promote SC2 with exciting games. They are not here to have fun. They are not here to experiment with macro.
They are here to win, because they have given up hours of their lives, much of their emotional energy, and maybe even some of their relationships in order to support themselves. This is their livelihood. It's not like they get paid handsome salaries whether they win or lose, a la NBA or the MLB. These guys HAVE to win to continue. Put yourself in their shoes for one instant and you can see that so clearly. I have no idea what some of you people are thinking blaming the players. It is absurd and completely unsympathetic to them.
Sure that is true. But pro gaming wouldn't exist if it wasn't fun to watch because nobody would sponsor them. I don't blame rain, he should do what he has to. But in the long run if people are having issues with starcraft 2 being boring, it's definitely going to affect their future as pro gamers.
That's very ignorant. A Zerg player can know it is coming from the beginning of the game and still not be able to stop it without putting himself in a huge disadvantage, how is that fine? These types of strategies shouldn't be so powerful that they can win game after game. It's not good for the game, the players, or the spectators.
I bet you were not a BW player, at least not familiar with BW. In early stage of BW games, it's kind of standard that Zerg build at least 3 sunkens to against Terran early m+m+1 tank push. Nestea could also easily defend the rush if he had more sunkens prepared. Compared with BW zerg players, current SC2 zerg players are much more greedy in their play styles.
It may be frustrating to see 10 games in a row, but I can't blame the players for doing a strategy that is entirely within the rules of the game. I want to see these players genuinely play the games to win them, not try to put on some sham of a macro game just because "fans don't like all-ins". The fans are not the ones who are in the running for the money and pride that comes from winning this tournament. And these same "fans" would still turn on a player if his macro games aren't good.
Play the games to win. If an SCV+Marine all-in is what will win you every game for now, then I can't blame you for doing it when this much money is up for grabs. I would just suggest that these players work on their macro as well because this wont stay the norm forever, either through Blizzard's intervention or some breakthrough in Zerg play.
On December 08 2010 04:21 SlipperySnake wrote: If I were Rain I would just tell the forums that they should be at Nestea because he did super greedy fast expands. Learn to play and stop crying about how bad it was to watch. It was Nestea's fault it was bad to watch because he lost early.
Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Bullshit. Cancel the hatch and build 12 lings or 3 spine crawlers. That should hold off the rush.
I'm making up numbers here, but they're enough of a ballpark estimate to illustrate the point.
If you put the hatchery down with a spine crawler and save larva, you might have a 60% chance of losing to the marine/SCV attack 4 minutes into the game.
If you don't put the hatchery down and build 3 spine crawlers above your ramp instead, you'll survive the marine/SCV attack but will have a 100% chance of losing 10 minutes into the game.
You know you are basically saying that zerg is underpowered right? If zerg at best has a 40% chance of winning then you are kinda saying that either zerg is UP or terran is OP.
I'm not sure i buy that.
Make it whatever you want, I was just making it a number >50% to illustrate that it's currently in T's favor with the map pool and the way Z has been executing. I'm sure with different maps or better decisions with lings, the number could switch.
No matter what, it's still better than the guaranteed defeat later on in the game if you try to play 1base vs T.
On December 09 2010 10:48 Fwiffo wrote: I'm not a fan of Terran game-play either, but it's ridiculous that a pro-gamer caves into the incessant whining of the Zerg community. Rain SHOULD be ashamed, not for his tactics but FOR APOLOGIZING that he used them! Do you think a single Zerg apologized in Brood War for 4 pooling?
Edit:
On December 08 2010 15:05 Gotmog wrote: Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
Oh forgot to address the above post which proves my point btw. Although “over a hundred” Zerg posts defends that the “greedy” build is the “safest against this push” it is not the opinion of the GSL commentators (i.e. Artosis) nor is evidenced by how other Zergs handled this through-out the tournament. As soon as you suspect the rush is coming, stop droning! Build spine crawlers and lings - defense - just like every other race has to when they FE! Elementary my dear Watson!
I can't believe I'm defending Terran!
You're so ignorant on the matter.
1. Artosis has conceded his earlier beliefs about it not being the safest. So he's an awful person to use for your argument. 2. You don't drone at ALL at the beginning vs tworax. You literally are pumping Zerglings as fast as you can. However, after you have enough to push back a tworax, then you start droning. There's two times you can die. First is when you're NEVER droning and you're making lings asap, and then there's another in a later timing window when you start droning up again. It is during this time Zerg is playing blind, and you don't know whether or not Terran decided to expo (in which you'll be behind if you're still on like 17 drones and he has more harvesters + mules, or you'll be crushed by an all-in if you started droning again).
No it's not impossible to stop. But by god, you're suggestions about utterly ignorant. Amazing you say it's "elementary."
Oh, please enlighten me on the correct play-by-play moves on how this rush is stopped, because it HAS been stopped plenty of times during this GSL WHEN the Zerg had a contingency for it. Are you telling me Spine Crawlers weren't built, Zerglings weren't produced and Drone production wasn't temporarily stopped? Are you saying this a broken build that wasn't discovered until GSL 3 and thereby letting a Zerg player take the title for the first two GSLs or having the highest number of entrants for this one?
And I can't believe you're complaining about Artosis. There isn't a more visible and staunch advocate for the Zerg cause than he. Being a major commentator for currently the largest SC2 league hosting, for the longest while he unashamedly argued Zerg points to the aggravation of viewers, until he stopped recently (for some reason). And you're not satisfied?
I'll admit, my language was baiting and my 'recommendation' a little simplistic where it may have undermined the difficulty in countering this rush, however it outlined what I observed in how the rush was successfully countered. If fast-expanding against Terran, the Zerg player must consider this response. GENERALLY, it means bolstering the expansion preemptively with a Spine Crawler at the cost of early gains at macro. Build defenses for your expansion - elementary. In any case, the 27 Zergs who qualified for this GSL had to to contend with this rush at some point or another and win.
Perhaps I shouldn't have called it 'elementary' and let the MAIN POINT in my post stand – Rain shouldn't have to apologize due to the Zerg community crying. In Brood War, 4 pool was a staple and no one apologized for it. In fact I recall a MSL(I believe) between July and Best, where July brought Drones and Lings with the Drones glitching the Zealot out of the choke so the Lings would flood in. Not quite a 4 pool (if you're looking to nit-pick and you oh so want to), but very early and NO outcry when July won.
And as to trying to highlight MY ignorance, I suppose your enlightened self supports this:
On December 08 2010 15:05 Gotmog wrote: Learn to read what has been said over a hundred times about what you can "greedy" builds. They are the safest against this push.
On December 09 2010 15:02 Polygamy wrote: we cant get mad at players for doing what works... its like if we got mad at home run hitters in baseball because we want to watch more exciting out fielding.
This, 100%. Money is on the line here, and money can be more important than "what will they think of me if I use this strategy!?"
People who want to watch a better showing should go watch WWE and stop looking at RTS games. The main point of a RTS game is the strategy and doing what ever trick to win! Most of these people will jump up and and wistle all day for pre determined 30 minit game between sc1 wash out stars!
On December 09 2010 18:59 Reesj wrote: People who want to watch a better showing should go watch WWE and stop looking at RTS games. The main point of a RTS game is the strategy and doing what ever trick to win! Most of these people will jump up and and wistle all day for pre determined 30 minit game between sc1 wash out stars!
i dont agree with you at all.i love to see jinro play, the way he beat moon was awesome. Jinro didn’t chose any lame builds, played a solid macro game and with good strategy (not a trick for a easy win) he took the set.
Ofc there are alot of people who want fast wins so a marine/scv all in is a nice flavor of the month, but it wil fade. once zerg get more comfortable defending all-ins like that.
I feel that it is incredibly difficult to win long games against Zerg. I think that to expect Terran to macro up against a Zerg is simply irrational. All-ins and cheeses are just part of the game, and you have to be able to deal with them to be a top player. Also, not all of TSLRain's builds were all-in. Some were, whereas others were just rushes! I agree that if you want a bunch of long macro games, get Blizzard to change the matchup. Also Chill has a great point. Yeah long macro games are fun to watch, but it's not realistic that every game should be that way. Part of the game is the element of surprise as well. You have to be able to switch up your strategies, rushing sometimes, macroing other times. I agree with Chill 100%.
That's very ignorant. A Zerg player can know it is coming from the beginning of the game and still not be able to stop it without putting himself in a huge disadvantage, how is that fine? These types of strategies shouldn't be so powerful that they can win game after game. It's not good for the game, the players, or the spectators.
I bet you were not a BW player, at least not familiar with BW. In early stage of BW games, it's kind of standard that Zerg build at least 3 sunkens to against Terran early m+m+1 tank push. Nestea could also easily defend the rush if he had more sunkens prepared. Compared with BW zerg players, current SC2 zerg players are much more greedy in their play styles.
You clearly didn't give much though to this post. The rush hits WELL before a spine crawler can be up, considering the long build time and that the need for creep requires a hatch first build. If you build the crawler in your own base, congratulations, it'll never burrow alive. If you go pool first then well done, your ramp is walled and you have to wait for a few minutes for creep to reach the ramp so you can break it. In the interim, Terran expands safely.
I think that although some players such as HongUn say that they are playing to entertain and show something different, in the long run, everyone is playing to win. If they didn't have that determination I doubt they would be there in the first place, perhaps you will see a lot of cheese, especially on particular maps in certain matchups (perhaps the veto issue should come into play here, I don't veto any maps myself, and I'm not particularly for or against it but some players have been dealt with rather harsh maps for their race/matchup in GSL3, but I like the idea that players have to prepare for a variety of maps much like they prepare against a variety of builds). I think this is part of the evolving metagame and that people will find ways to make these all-in-ish builds less effective, though it maybe a long struggle of short games to get there.
That's very ignorant. A Zerg player can know it is coming from the beginning of the game and still not be able to stop it without putting himself in a huge disadvantage, how is that fine? These types of strategies shouldn't be so powerful that they can win game after game. It's not good for the game, the players, or the spectators.
I bet you were not a BW player, at least not familiar with BW. In early stage of BW games, it's kind of standard that Zerg build at least 3 sunkens to against Terran early m+m+1 tank push. Nestea could also easily defend the rush if he had more sunkens prepared. Compared with BW zerg players, current SC2 zerg players are much more greedy in their play styles.
You clearly didn't give much though to this post. The rush hits WELL before a spine crawler can be up, considering the long build time and that the need for creep requires a hatch first build. If you build the crawler in your own base, congratulations, it'll never burrow alive. If you go pool first then well done, your ramp is walled and you have to wait for a few minutes for creep to reach the ramp so you can break it. In the interim, Terran expands safely.
I'm both a terran and zerg player right now. I dont see any difficulties to build 2 spine crawlers on the expansion while delay one queen instead of those two crawlers. While terran pull out scvs, you should pull out same number of drones. just wait a few times until the spine crawlers finished, BING, you defend it, and terran has to pull back all his scvs go through a long walk and you only lose a bit of mining time. There is no reason that zerg can easily drone up and defend while your opponent are kind of all in. I admit that zerg lose some advantage in the early development, but that's the way it is, you cant expect easily expan and drone up in small maps.
aggression > greedy greedy > standard standard > aggression
14 hatch, is greedy because you have NO defense or offensive units. either get ready and get some static defenses to hold, or die because your rock/paper/scissor gambit of going rock, just got papered.
On December 10 2010 08:31 Melancholia wrote: 2 crawlers? Then you've got no money to build lings. If the Terran sees only drones defending he'll gladly run over you.
he said INSTEAD OF QUEEN, that means you still have minerals for zerglings, you just have a delayed queen.
On December 10 2010 08:55 Kazeyonoma wrote: aggression > greedy greedy > standard standard > aggression
14 hatch, is greedy because you have NO defense or offensive units. either get ready and get some static defenses to hold, or die because your rock/paper/scissor gambit of going rock, just got papered.
14 hatch is one of the safest builds, it's power droning thats greedy and no one here is recommending it.
Anyone know if Ret or others made any comments regarding best usage of queens energy when it pops? I personally oddly enough am finding an inital creep tumor is much more useful then a round of larva and would love to hear other players thoughts / experiences regarding queens inital cast.
Sorry OP but if I was playing for [b]$90000[/b] I'd do anything I can to get my hands on it. If cheesy all-in's get me that money then I'd be easily able to do it with a clear conscience. So what if Nestea is the 'better' player, if you go by that logic that the best player should win why even bother having the effin tournament in the first place. All-in's are legit and can be stopped, if the player doesn't stop them it's tough shit and they lose, Rain should not have apologized for anything, it's his job to win, if I was him I wouldn't give a fuck if the games were fun to watch or not.
The problem is not with the players, the community can't expect them to risk losing just to put on a good show, good shows happen naturally, the sooner people realise that the better.
On December 10 2010 08:55 Kazeyonoma wrote: aggression > greedy greedy > standard standard > aggression
14 hatch, is greedy because you have NO defense or offensive units. either get ready and get some static defenses to hold, or die because your rock/paper/scissor gambit of going rock, just got papered.
14 hatch is one of the safest builds, it's power droning thats greedy and no one here is recommending it.
Anyone know if Ret or others made any comments regarding best usage of queens energy when it pops? I personally oddly enough am finding an inital creep tumor is much more useful then a round of larva and would love to hear other players thoughts / experiences regarding queens inital cast.
That depends completely on the MU and when you put down your spawning pool.
If going 14 hatch in ZvT, like is being discussed, putting down the creep tumor is always better as you don't have the income to take advantage of the 4 larva anyway, and if you don't use larva as soon as they spawn, you don't get natural spawning larva, and therefore wasted your energy.
Stop focusing on the builds and nerfs and buffs and lets take a step back and look at the real issue that SC2 has at the moment.
The number one problem affecting the cheese issue is that the maps are too small. If the maps were larger, the vast majority of cheese in this game would become ineffective and we could get back to watching quality games. Some of the most entertaining games in SC2 being played today are happening on Shakura's, Metal far positions, Lost Temple, and Scrap Station (Kulas Ravine had some amazing matches as well, lets not forget). They are the most entertaining games because the rush distances are longer, and thus cheese is less effective, leading to more macro-oriented games.
They should make larger maps, and fix the spawns on Metal so that it works like Shakura's Plateau, and I'm sure that would fix the cheese issue entirely.
On December 10 2010 09:35 Nemireck wrote: Stop focusing on the builds and nerfs and buffs and lets take a step back and look at the real issue that SC2 has at the moment.
The number one problem affecting the cheese issue is that the maps are too small. If the maps were larger, the vast majority of cheese in this game would become ineffective and we could get back to watching quality games. Some of the most entertaining games in SC2 being played today are happening on Shakura's, Metal far positions, Lost Temple, and Scrap Station (Kulas Ravine had some amazing matches as well, lets not forget). They are the most entertaining games because the rush distances are longer, and thus cheese is less effective, leading to more macro-oriented games.
They should make larger maps, and fix the spawns on Metal so that it works like Shakura's Plateau, and I'm sure that would fix the cheese issue entirely.
You would just kill half of the game doing that, it's a ridiculous idea.
I think it would be nice if one of these "pro cheesers" would purposely say they are cheesing to show blizzard that some balance changes need to be made whether its maps, races, or whatever. I mean imagine an interview with a winner of gsl and if he says "I pretty much suck, I just cheese every game to break the tournament and show Blizzard that they need to fix the game" or something like that lol.
On December 10 2010 09:35 Nemireck wrote: Stop focusing on the builds and nerfs and buffs and lets take a step back and look at the real issue that SC2 has at the moment.
The number one problem affecting the cheese issue is that the maps are too small. If the maps were larger, the vast majority of cheese in this game would become ineffective and we could get back to watching quality games. Some of the most entertaining games in SC2 being played today are happening on Shakura's, Metal far positions, Lost Temple, and Scrap Station (Kulas Ravine had some amazing matches as well, lets not forget). They are the most entertaining games because the rush distances are longer, and thus cheese is less effective, leading to more macro-oriented games.
They should make larger maps, and fix the spawns on Metal so that it works like Shakura's Plateau, and I'm sure that would fix the cheese issue entirely.
You would just kill half of the game doing that, it's a ridiculous idea.
Actually his idea is somewhat understandable. BW's maps were much larger than SC2's maps, and it didn't kill half of the game at all.
Im hoping in time that As strategies flesh out and peoples game senses improve that cheeses wont be as viable . Last night with Rain vs Hongun we saw a great macro game on meta. But after that it went down hill =/
Jesus christ, people do what they have to do to win. Cheese is a part of the game, and as you say Nestea is better mid-game, then I guess it was damn clever of Rain to finish him off early?
If theres anyone to blame its blizzard imo, terrans realised that they can't play long macro games against zerg so they have to do early early pressure to atleast stay on par.
What if marines had an ability called charge that once researched, started to cool down (also when marines pop it starts its cool down). Once it cools down, the marine can charge once to a location with vision (cooldown 60-120 sec?) and the marines will walk with stimpack speed to there but without actually having lost 10 hp. Any action will cancel the charge and charging will have no impact on attack speed.
PS. Stimpacking while charging will cancel the charge.
I wish they would bring back Desert Oasis. Fucking huge rush distance, so cheese was almost nonexistent on that map. However, pressure was still very viable and so were some early rushes. So many epic games were fought on that map.
Stop with these claustrophobic maps Blizzard, large maps are a good thing. Blistering Sands and Jungle Basin are the very maps that you should be laughing off in the discussion room, not making standard ladder maps. Christ x-x
I've watched GSL 1,2,3 and I've enjoyed everyone of them. I must be the odd one out because I enjoyed watching the early rushes against Nestea. I think it's exciting knowing that those early battles make every decision an important one and I get completely engrossed when they occur.
It's agreed upon that early marine scv rushes can be defended and I believe it's up to the opponent to defend them. It was horrible when Ret was taking out by aggressive 1 base timing attacks but we all agree, including him, that he could have made better decisions and defended the attacks and won.
In any competition with that much money on the line a player will do anything they can to win. Rain was losing long macro games so of course he makes the smart decision and changes to early rushes. You can't blame an individual for that and I personally enjoy watching those games.
When players get better at defending those early pushes obviously we'll see less of them.
I'm worried that Blizzard will feel pressured and over-compensate and then we'll only end up with long, drawn-out macro games. Better variety of maps could probably fix it. It definitely should still be OK to cheese sometimes.
On December 10 2010 10:02 Disastorm wrote: I think it would be nice if one of these "pro cheesers" would purposely say they are cheesing to show blizzard that some balance changes need to be made whether its maps, races, or whatever. I mean imagine an interview with a winner of gsl and if he says "I pretty much suck, I just cheese every game to break the tournament and show Blizzard that they need to fix the game" or something like that lol.
On December 10 2010 09:35 Nemireck wrote: Stop focusing on the builds and nerfs and buffs and lets take a step back and look at the real issue that SC2 has at the moment.
The number one problem affecting the cheese issue is that the maps are too small. If the maps were larger, the vast majority of cheese in this game would become ineffective and we could get back to watching quality games. Some of the most entertaining games in SC2 being played today are happening on Shakura's, Metal far positions, Lost Temple, and Scrap Station (Kulas Ravine had some amazing matches as well, lets not forget). They are the most entertaining games because the rush distances are longer, and thus cheese is less effective, leading to more macro-oriented games.
They should make larger maps, and fix the spawns on Metal so that it works like Shakura's Plateau, and I'm sure that would fix the cheese issue entirely.
You would just kill half of the game doing that, it's a ridiculous idea.
Actually his idea is somewhat understandable. BW's maps were much larger than SC2's maps, and it didn't kill half of the game at all.
BW is a different game to SC2, a very different game so don't try and compare them.
Also as regards to GSL cheese, does anyone really want to see every single game a 45 minute macro game? TBH that would be so boring.
On December 10 2010 09:35 Nemireck wrote: Stop focusing on the builds and nerfs and buffs and lets take a step back and look at the real issue that SC2 has at the moment.
The number one problem affecting the cheese issue is that the maps are too small. If the maps were larger, the vast majority of cheese in this game would become ineffective and we could get back to watching quality games. Some of the most entertaining games in SC2 being played today are happening on Shakura's, Metal far positions, Lost Temple, and Scrap Station (Kulas Ravine had some amazing matches as well, lets not forget). They are the most entertaining games because the rush distances are longer, and thus cheese is less effective, leading to more macro-oriented games.
They should make larger maps, and fix the spawns on Metal so that it works like Shakura's Plateau, and I'm sure that would fix the cheese issue entirely.
Personally, I wish they'd make maps larger. From balance perspective however, terran would be so screwed and I think they'd be in dire need to buffs to compensate(if all maps were made larger that is).
Depending on how multible OC's might pan out, terran is fighting a very uphill battle against equally skilled zerg(and to lesser degree toss) player if you can't get in their face early on. Ontop of that, there's no "go to" unit terran has in late game(well there's the BC, but it's hardly "goto" unless you have won the game already), just more of everything.
Tbh this is why I was against the tank nerf, make bigger maps and I think tank would've been fine at 50(heck prob 60) dmg. As I see it, terran is pretty much balanced around close to semi-close distance(and tbh with zerg macro machine, I'd argue it's also balanced around semi-close distance, just from the other side of the meter).
Problem is the maps and the fact that T players feel (right or wrong) that they can't beat Z in a long macro game.
I think the whole apology/outrage thing completely ridiculous. If I knew I would win a tournament with that much money on the line by 6 pooling or 2 gate proxy or 2 raxing all-in EVERY game, I would do it in a heartbeat no problem and no apologies.
a player should never have to apologize for the way he played
generally if a player loses to allins it means that this player is playing risky/greedy and got punished for it so i would say good job to rain for doing what works and reading his opponent correctly and finding weaknesses in his play
if this cheese or whatever bo he did was imba or not i dont know but ill just assume its balanced
i have more respect for players who allin than play extremely risky and taking huge risks to make himself look good until he get rushed and dies hard. i have most respect for player who play solid tho :p
I see so many zergs not even scouting in zvt... Seriously, what the hell do they think? They can blindly 14 hatch and be gready not to scout or defend from ramp block? All in them thats my response. I play random and I cant allow myself to play that gready when I get zerg.
All-ins is very strong and definitely not fun to watch. ]: I've been wondering what's the largest Korean SC2 forum? I bet it would be cool to check the strats there.
God, why cant the zerg community just be as P a bit? Just get over it.
Now on a serious note: I guess people said it: 14 hatch is the eco cheese equivalent of 2 rax. I guess we could use a patch in these dark times, just so all the flame and angrynesss get softened up.
On December 13 2010 11:09 tocador wrote: God, why cant the zerg community just be as P a bit? Just get over it.
Now on a serious note: I guess people said it: 14 hatch is the eco cheese equivalent of 2 rax. I guess we could use a patch in these dark times, just so all the flame and angrynesss get softened up.
Want to nerf zerg late? Inject from 4 >3.
You do realise that 14 hatching is basically the best all-in protection zerg have? This becomes even more the case if you change inject from 4->3 as zerg really are so hard up for larvae in the early game that they need every one they can get.
A lot of the time zerg players 14 hatch they don't get a single drone from it against a 2-rax terran for quite some time. It is purely used for the larvae which are needed to defend against marine rushes.
The other main advantage to getting the 14 hatch is that it helps positioning so much - it takes the battle away from the ramp, prevents bunkers blocking the ramp and gives a small amount of creep on which you can micro lings better.
Honestly as a zerg you don't want to fight in your main because if you do you will almost certainly lose. It gives your opponent the chance to kill half your production (your queen), your economy and possibly even your tech structures, even if you do successfully defend what they send.
14-hatch is the safest build that zerg players can do. There are huge advantages to it and basically no disadvantages by comparison to 1-base play (and yes, expanding around the ~20 food mark is basically 1-base all-in play due to the options it gives your opponent).
On December 07 2010 03:12 Welmu wrote: I wouldn't blame Blizzard on this. I think it's Nestea's problem not being prepared for all-in. Seriously, Marine/SCV all in isn't impossible to beat...
the pros (idra,ret,nestea) claim it is actually near impossible. so maybe you know better than them and should teach them the way of the samurai
I love this argument. Did you read Protoss players interviews? Did anybody care? Why oh why it's always "l2p" for other races and yet, Blizzard has to quickly fix any difficulty Zerg is experiencing?
Now, this seriously needs some arguments thrown into it.
I find it hilarious when people come up with this. The likes of Tester, Genius and MC are as talented as any Zerg out there, or any terran out there. It's just that they keep playing the game, despite horrible GSL statistics for Toss.
There'sa period of one or two minutes when Terran are super-OP against zerg, thanks in large part to mules. This also affects TvP, to a lesser extent. Changing mules or marines worsens the situation for lategame T, which is already considered iffy.
Why not just have the Orbital Command start with 0 energy? That'll make the all-in weaker, but it won't affect the Terran very much into the late game when OCs are already up. It won't make late-game T any better, but it'll keep it from getting worse.
There is no need to QQ on these forms. Its the fault of the meta game. Terran and protoss have a hard time vs zerg if they dont end the game early. In season 1 and 2 macro zerg was the way to go, no one could counter it correctly. Now that terran has a build that counters hatch first you can do 1 of three things, QQ, you can go and try to make another build work, or you can build a solid argument with evidence that all terran all ins are impossible to stop. Being a protoss i can remain objective when judging tvz and ill say this; rain is no more to blame than nestea. nestea went with an economic build and that is susceptible to all ins. As far as cheese goes, people like to miss use this term all the time. Yes, the games rain won may have been short. But are all short games cheese? Responding to someones build order is not cheese. If you blindly 6 pool, that is an example of cheese. If you see someone building nexus first, is it cheese because you decided to build troops and kill it before his economy exploded? No, no race "deserves" to have a 2-1 economic advantage without there being some risk involved. Don't blame rain for capitalizing on nestea's mistakes.
Marine + scv attacks are not allin at all because it forces ton of lings instead of drones and terran can easily catch up with mules while expanding behind it. Only problem so far is that no proper way to defend these attack was found yet or no one is using it (pulling all your drones to defend, fast banelings, early transfuzed spine crawlers etc..) .. maybe except fruitdealer like we saw in his matches against bitbybit.
Be toss, then. Or Terran. If you can S-class as a "fucking awful" race, then you can be a champion if you pick a stronger race, right?
You were considering going Protoss a while ago, weren't you? Why didn't you? As a toss (slash-random) myself, I was looking forward to one of the biggest name foreigners telling the world how underpowered they were!
The truth of the matter, is that you should not give an apology because TSLRAIN may not be the best in your mind, But he managed to beat a top tier player with the all ins. Sure you may not like that, but NesTea not ONCE did he think to adjust his play. To Rain i say good job bro you got to the finals. Do what you can do to win the game, not make your self look like a god. Cheese is apart of the game, NesTea needs to learn how to stop that cheese which obviously he can't. Stop critiquing players for cheese. Especially if they won the game with superior skill, and able to execute it when the opponent could not.
Why would you apology for winning with cheese??? Obviously everyone who play against him knowing the possibility of cheese. They prepare first hand but still lose. if you consider yourself a pro, you have to find a way to counter this build even if you'll suffer in economy game.
as long Z goes 14hatch 15pool, T will respond with that all in. One could blame nestea as well playing a greedy build forcing the terran to respond this way .. if 14h15p is the best counter as some Z pros stated, well than we have a balance problem.. however I think there are builds fending this off better. we'll see