|
Canada2480 Posts
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
|
On December 07 2010 06:09 Shifft wrote: The dude is a cheesy bastard, and he won the series fair and square.
Why is this an issue? lol spot on
|
I'm pretty sure you play to win the game.
Whatever it takes.
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.
I play protoss, by the way.
|
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?
= = Essentially equivalent ~ = Approximate ~! = Slight disadvantage ! = Disadvantage !! = Extreme disadvantage ~+ = Slight advantage + = Advantage ++ = Extreme advantage
Assuming 14h/14p
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 03:48 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 03:38 Seide wrote:On December 07 2010 03:33 IdrA wrote:On December 07 2010 03:31 Lonyo wrote: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 06:04 Gotmog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 06:00 GoSu] wrote:On December 07 2010 05:30 Gotmog wrote: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:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=173223¤tpage=211#4220
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.
|
Watching baneling 1A in each TvZ is also "not too good to watch paying $19.99 per season", since its 100% Zerg win past early game.
|
|
|
|