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.