PDA

View Full Version : Bored? Check out this Starcraft II tournament


Taco John
04-09-2011, 01:12 PM
The TSL is on!

http://www.teamliquid.net/video/streams/TeamLiquidTV

If you've never seen a Starcraft II tournament, this is one of the best ones you can watch. These are some of the best players in the world. It's a lot of fun!

Willynowei
04-09-2011, 02:42 PM
The TSL is on!

http://www.teamliquid.net/video/streams/TeamLiquidTV

If you've never seen a Starcraft II tournament, this is one of the best ones you can watch. These are some of the best players in the world. It's a lot of fun!

Its interesting how much more attention TSL is getting than the Gom TV tournaments simply because it forces foreigners into its brackets instead of having them all get eliminated by Koreans in the preliminary trials.

I haven't watched Starcraft in sometime, it is fun if you play it.

HILife
04-09-2011, 03:02 PM
Think I missed it. Nothing showing.

Taco John
04-09-2011, 03:09 PM
IF you missed it, the VODs are posted here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=203014

Taco John
04-09-2011, 03:13 PM
If you really want to see something cool, the World Championship finals were last night. They posted them here:

http://www.gomtv.net/2011championship/vod/64516

You might have to forward through some of the hype stuff - this is like the Korean Superbowl - dancing girls and production value galore. But the games are REALLY REALLY good as the series goes on (it's a best of 7 format). And with the live audience and skilled commentators, you really get a feel for the excitement of the game and why people get into it.

HILife
04-09-2011, 03:29 PM
Never been much of a strategy game kind of person, but thought I look at the videos anyway.

Here is my current (can always change) video game Wish List in no particular order.

Portal 2
Deus EX: Human Revolution
Elder Scrolls V

UberBroncoMan
04-09-2011, 04:05 PM
Starcraft II is top notch. Mark my words. Professional gaming is going to be a legitimate professional career within 20 years. Game music is now getting some categorization in the Grammy awards. Games are also overtaking movies in overall profits. It's the future.

Taco John
04-09-2011, 05:04 PM
Starcraft II is top notch. Mark my words. Professional gaming is going to be a legitimate professional career within 20 years. Game music is now getting some categorization in the Grammy awards. Games are also overtaking movies in overall profits. It's the future.

Within 1 year. The NASL has something like a $400,000 prize pot with something like $85,000 going to the champion. The winner of the IGN league, wins $50k, and I think that's the same amount for winning the MLG tournament at the end of the season. There's a lot of money moving into the space right now.

Killericon
04-09-2011, 05:56 PM
I've been getting huge into Starcraft 2 lately. Check day[9] if you really want to get better. His videos are excellent.

Taco John
04-09-2011, 06:48 PM
I've been getting huge into Starcraft 2 lately. Check day[9] if you really want to get better. His videos are excellent.

Believe me, I know allllll about Day[9]. I've found myself way more into Starcraft 2 than I ever imagined I'd ever be into a video game since graduating college. I can't get enough of it. I'm not great at it, but I have fun in bronze league.

Killericon
04-09-2011, 07:36 PM
Believe me, I know allllll about Day[9]. I've found myself way more into Starcraft 2 than I ever imagined I'd ever be into a video game since graduating college. I can't get enough of it. I'm not great at it, but I have fun in bronze league.

I'm in Silver(So worth getting out of Bronze just to get away from the Cannon rushing assholes). Lemme know if you wanna play some time.

willyallthewei
04-09-2011, 08:02 PM
Within 1 year. The NASL has something like a $400,000 prize pot with something like $85,000 going to the champion. The winner of the IGN league, wins $50k, and I think that's the same amount for winning the MLG tournament at the end of the season. There's a lot of money moving into the space right now.

Yeah but that's still tournament money, and its really not big enough. First place alone in Counter Strike made hundreds of thousands over a decade ago.

Real professional gaming is the system they have in Korea for Starcraft, which resembles a sports league's model here in the US. There are dozens of teams, where the members of each get paid a set salary, and they share profits made from televising the games that get distributed to the teams.

Then you're talking about paying 50k to every employee in your organization, not just 50K to a hobbiest winner who happens to win that year.

willyallthewei
04-09-2011, 08:09 PM
Believe me, I know allllll about Day[9]. I've found myself way more into Starcraft 2 than I ever imagined I'd ever be into a video game since graduating college. I can't get enough of it. I'm not great at it, but I have fun in bronze league.

if you want to get real good real fast, just pick a very basic build order and get really good doing it. Watching Day-9, unfortunately, i don't think is a great way to improve for bronze league players. Thats simply because, Day 9 talks about starcraft in a way that makes you think a about some of the different strategies, and at the early levels, thinking is kind of counter productive. What you really want to do is get the bread and butter build (4 gate, 3 rax, 1 base roach, watever) for your race, and just get really fast at that build - to the second.

With just that, I think you can get to gold league in a day, maybe 2.

UberBroncoMan
04-09-2011, 10:36 PM
Within 1 year. The NASL has something like a $400,000 prize pot with something like $85,000 going to the champion. The winner of the IGN league, wins $50k, and I think that's the same amount for winning the MLG tournament at the end of the season. There's a lot of money moving into the space right now.

Definitely a lot of money, however it's only a enough for a very, very, small select few individuals. Not enough money is in there yet for it to be a viable career that you can tell your family, "this is what I'm doing with my life," without being laughed at.

Connecticut Bronco Fan
04-09-2011, 11:41 PM
Definitely a lot of money, however it's only a enough for a very, very, small select few individuals. Not enough money is in there yet for it to be a viable career that you can tell your family, "this is what I'm doing with my life," without being laughed at.

There's professional gamers all over Europe and Asia, it's a viable living if you happen to be one of the best in the world at the game.

There's even companies that will sponsor and play their players a ton of money for playing for them. fnatic comes to mind.

willyallthewei
04-09-2011, 11:46 PM
Definitely a lot of money, however it's only a enough for a very, very, small select few individuals. Not enough money is in there yet for it to be a viable career that you can tell your family, "this is what I'm doing with my life," without being laughed at.

Korea is the exception, there a starcraft player is treated and compensated relative to the rest of the country the way a pro-sports player is here.

Killericon
04-10-2011, 12:46 AM
if you want to get real good real fast, just pick a very basic build order and get really good doing it. Watching Day-9, unfortunately, i don't think is a great way to improve for bronze league players. Thats simply because, Day 9 talks about starcraft in a way that makes you think a about some of the different strategies, and at the early levels, thinking is kind of counter productive. What you really want to do is get the bread and butter build (4 gate, 3 rax, 1 base roach, watever) for your race, and just get really fast at that build - to the second.

With just that, I think you can get to gold league in a day, maybe 2.

But that's a really boring way to play. I'm happy playing in Silver if it means that I go into a game without a set build order. I know how to open, and what my build order options are, but I have more fun just winging it.

willyallthewei
04-10-2011, 07:15 AM
But that's a really boring way to play. I'm happy playing in Silver if it means that I go into a game without a set build order. I know how to open, and what my build order options are, but I have more fun just winging it.

I guess, but doing 1 build order doesn't mean you're stuck doing the same thing.

For instance, 3 Rax, 4gate, 1 base roach are all sort of "stuck" compared to other build orders for each race. 2gate/3gate Robo, 1-1-1, and anything thats not a 1 base roach or early pool for zerg is very flexible.

look at all the options in this flow chart:

http://www.sc2-strategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-art-of-zvp-flowchart.jpg

I don't think thats boring, I think there's a lot of variety in what you are doing. However, I can agree that it limits your decision making to before the game starts, and maybe you want to feel like you're constantly innovating.

The idea is once you get real good at a standard build, as long as you don't use it as a crutch and are willing to try new things from there, you can win a lot but also innovate your own builds.

Taco John
04-10-2011, 12:02 PM
The TSL is starting at 11am PST today for anyone interested:
http://www.teamliquid.net/video/streams/TeamLiquidTV

Some good matches scheduled.

55CrushEm
04-11-2011, 07:18 AM
Believe me, I know allllll about Day[9]. I've found myself way more into Starcraft 2 than I ever imagined I'd ever be into a video game since graduating college. I can't get enough of it. I'm not great at it, but I have fun in bronze league.

Me too. I bought it on July 27th....the day it came out.....and it's the only game I've played since. I even bought Fallout Vegas....and haven't touched it yet. Like you, I just can't get enough of SC 2.

I'm in the Platinum League for 2v2....and in Gold for 4v4. I just can't seem to crack diamond.

Willynowei
04-17-2011, 09:31 AM
My 2 favorite matches so far:

TLO (Most exciting player in SC2 hands down) v. Nada (a Legend from SC1)
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZGsTuo7FHCM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jinro (probably top 5 player in the world right now) v. Morrow (used to be top ladder guy in EU server i think)
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/otpLDfU3BJI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Boobs McGee
04-17-2011, 11:27 AM
This **** is crazy!!! Not knowing what the hell is going on, it's still really fun to watch!

Fedaykin
04-17-2011, 01:02 PM
The problem with Starcraft is it's not an RTS game -- it's a real time tactics game. It's sometimes fun, but not particularly interesting as a genre game.

It's terrain and resource model is built specifically to enforce a particular game style (that style being the only effective strategy "choice" is to be offensive and expand aggressively). This restrictions is really boring but a necessity since there is no effective defensive strategy that a player can employ with the units and terrain and resource model. Sure, you can build a cute little wall of cannons in your main base, but you are dooming yourself if you do (and those cannons are going to lose badly to anything more potent than a few zerglings).

The rock, paper scissors aspect is also annoying. It's ok (but really damn boring) when you have one opponent if you scout properly to make sure you're building rocks if they are building scissors. But if you have one opponent building rocks and the other building scissors -- you have no effective unit mix to combat either threat. This system takes most of the thought out of the mix and replaces it with luck and who can click faster.

The posters here talking about becoming a better player by "choosing and practicing a particular build order" (which is correct) speaks volumes about how boxed in you are as a player. When your best hope for success is a static, single set of actions, well...

*snooze*

Willynowei
04-17-2011, 01:19 PM
The problem with Starcraft is it's not an RTS game -- it's a real time tactics game. It's sometimes fun, but not particularly interesting as a genre game.

It's terrain and resource model is built specifically to enforce a particular game style (that style being the only effective strategy "choice" is to be offensive and expand aggressively). This restrictions is really boring but a necessity since there is no effective defensive strategy that a player can employ with the units and terrain and resource model. Sure, you can build a cute little wall of cannons in your main base, but you are dooming yourself if you do (and those cannons are going to lose badly to anything more potent than a few zerglings).

The rock, paper scissors aspect is also annoying. It's ok (but really damn boring) when you have one opponent if you scout properly to make sure you're building rocks if they are building scissors. But if you have one opponent building rocks and the other building scissors -- you have no effective unit mix to combat either threat. This system takes most of the thought out of the mix and replaces it with luck and who can click faster.

The posters here talking about becoming a better player by "choosing and practicing a particular build order" (which is correct) speaks volumes about how boxed in you are as a player. When your best hope for success is a static, single set of actions, well...

*snooze*

I disagree with almost everything in your post.

1.) Yes, perfecting a single build order will get you up to the top 5% or so of players. After that, when players can actually handle the basics of macro, knowing a single build order will not be enough.

There is a ton of scouting and mind games in those two games I posted, can you name atleast 2? No, because you don't play or understand SC at that level, in fact SC: BW and SC2 are totally different games so the fact that you bunched the two together shows your lack of understanding of both games and the entire genre.

2.) You say that the fast pace of SC is boring, the fact that both SC games are far more popular worldwide than the defensive, macro oriented Supreme Commander and its root game - Total Annihilation is clear evidence to the contrary. When was the last time a tournament of TA or SC was popular? Never, for good reason - Massive hour long endurance battles are not as fun to watch or play as the back and forth in the SC games.

3.) SC2 units are not rock paper Scissor, except at low levels where players are garbage at micro. SC:BW had almost no hard counters, and great players could get out of the worst situations. You are not boxed in to a specific set of actions, especially not in BW and definitely not in SC2 at its current, early stage of evolution. The BW community produced unorthodox strategies in its later years after hundreds of pro players practiced the game 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for many years. There is no specific set of ways to win, but the top pro players that create tight build orders get emulated by lower players. Thats the most efficient way for a poor player to improve, doesn't mean that it forces you to play in a boxed manner, its just that the community produces "optimum" builds as pro players experiment.

4.) I also want to add that if you think the model of SC2 is no good because it encourages expansion and aggression, then I wonder what on earth you think is a good model.

All RTS games, every last one focuses on a general rock paper scissors concept. Aggressive play > Expansionist play > Defensive play > Aggressive Play.

There are some RTS games where you can "crawl" your defense into the range of opposing player's base, but you can do that in SC2 if you use Terran, and that is really just a variation of the expansionist playstyle.

Your example of photon cannons blocking your base is just terribly executed defensive play. Proper Protoss defensive play does not involve any photon cannons in 1 base play, 2 bass Forge FE with a photon cannon in the back is actually extremely effective against zerg, and will more often than not force a Baneling bust.

Taco John
04-17-2011, 01:55 PM
The problem with Starcraft is it's not an RTS game -- it's a real time tactics game. It's sometimes fun, but not particularly interesting as a genre game.

It's terrain and resource model is built specifically to enforce a particular game style (that style being the only effective strategy "choice" is to be offensive and expand aggressively). This restrictions is really boring but a necessity since there is no effective defensive strategy that a player can employ with the units and terrain and resource model. Sure, you can build a cute little wall of cannons in your main base, but you are dooming yourself if you do (and those cannons are going to lose badly to anything more potent than a few zerglings).

The rock, paper scissors aspect is also annoying. It's ok (but really damn boring) when you have one opponent if you scout properly to make sure you're building rocks if they are building scissors. But if you have one opponent building rocks and the other building scissors -- you have no effective unit mix to combat either threat. This system takes most of the thought out of the mix and replaces it with luck and who can click faster.

The posters here talking about becoming a better player by "choosing and practicing a particular build order" (which is correct) speaks volumes about how boxed in you are as a player. When your best hope for success is a static, single set of actions, well...

*snooze*


I couldn't disagree with this more. There are a million possible build orders int his game - the thought that there is only one viable way to play this game doesn't even register with me. There's an endless number of opportunities for diverse game play. Everything you've said is totally foriegn to my experience playing and observing the game.

Taco John
04-17-2011, 01:59 PM
By the way, there's a tournament match happening live at the the time of this posting:
http://www.ustream.tv/teamliquidtv

Fedaykin
04-17-2011, 03:01 PM
I disagree with almost everything in your post.

1.) Yes, perfecting a single build order will get you up to the top 5% or so of players. After that, when players can actually handle the basics of macro, knowing a single build order will not be enough.

There is a ton of scouting and mind games in those two games I posted, can you name atleast 2? No, because you don't play or understand SC at that level, in fact SC: BW and SC2 are totally different games so the fact that you bunched the two together shows your lack of understanding of both games and the entire genre.


Looks like I struck a nerve.


2.) You say that the fast pace of SC is boring, the fact that both SC games are far more popular worldwide than the defensive, macro oriented Supreme Commander and its root game - Total Annihilation is clear evidence to the contrary. When was the last time a tournament of TA or SC was popular? Never, for good reason - Massive hour long endurance battles are not as fun to watch or play as the back and forth in the SC games.


The problem with Starcraft is that games always end the same way at most levels of play. Either someone gets out RPSd or runs out of resources. There's very little of back and forth you talk about for 95% of game play levels (that's what makes the games quick!). Pretty much every Supcom game I've played with roughly equal opponents has had a ton of back and forth -- primarily because the value per unit is much lower and thus losing your 50%+ control limit army is damaging but not a knock out punch (due in large part to the fact that that army didn't die without doing significant damage itself).

Supcom is not a defensive, nor necessarily a macro oriented game. It can be (successfully) played that way -- it can also be successfully played with a multitude of other strategies at all game play levels. It depends a lot on the size and terrain of the map as well as the faction you play. For example, Cybran can be played immensely successfully at a micro level due to the stealth and unit make up of the faction (it's always fun to build an invisible fire base behind your enemy's line!).

And the argument from popularity is moot. Does McDonald's produce the best hamburger in the world? No.


3.) SC2 is not rock paper Scissor, except at low levels where players are garbage at micro. SC:BW had almost no hard counters, and great players could get out of the worst situations. You are not boxed in to a specific set of actions, especially not in BW and definitely not in SC2 at its current, early stage of evolution. The BW community produced unorthodox strategies in its later years after hundreds of pro players practiced the game 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for many years. There is no specific set of ways to win, but the top pro players that create tight build orders get emulated by lower players. Thats the most efficient way for a poor player to improve, doesn't mean that it forces you to play in a boxed manner, its just that the community produces "optimum" builds as pro players experiment.


I agree, if you play Starcraft 12 hours a day, 7 days a week you can come up with some interesting game play scenarios based on enormous skill at tactical micro management. Personally, I prefer NOT to drop that much time into a single activity -- but to each his own.

It also appears you agree that micro is the key to Starcraft.


4.) I also want to add that if you think the model of SC2 is no good because it encourages expansion and aggression, then I wonder what on earth you think is a good model.


Expansion and aggression is not "bad" -- if you'd read carefully you'd note my objection was that it is the only really viable strategy in Starcraft. In Supcom, for instance, you can successfully be a turtle and win the match via a strategy of attrition -- if you want. You can also win by fully embracing the blitz strategy. For two roughly equal players, either (and everything in between) is a viable strategy depending on the circumstance.

In Starcraft, if you do anything but some minor variation of the "expand and attack" strategy you are dead meat because you must continually expand to continue fighting due to the resource model.


All RTS games, every last one focuses on a general rock paper scissors concept. Aggressive play > Expansionist play > Defensive play > Aggressive Play.


Not to the absurd level that Starcraft does. In Starcraft you can greatly outnumber your opponent and still lose without the opponent taking a single loss -- if the army he brings to bear is rocks and all you had was scissors.

Supcom certainly has RPS. If I send my army at you without AA capability, you can wipe it out without much trouble if you have a strong air capability.

The difference is:

* There are no hard/absolute/absurd counters except where it's obvious (e.g. short range ground attack units being unable to attack a battleship). There's, for example, no hopeless zergling vs. hellion ground unit mismatch.

* Defense is actually viable -- and proper defensive formations can be an effective (though not perfect) counter to any RPS.

This setup provides for a lot better "back and forth" because you're never going to have an overwhelming advantage (value per value) over your opponent simply because of luck. In a good game, everything has a counter, but nothing provides an absolute counter (value per value).


There are some RTS games where you can "crawl" your defense into the range of opposing player's base, but you can do that in SC2 if you use Terran, and that is really just a variation of the expansionist playstyle.

In Supcom (not the abomination that is the second one) there's an indefinite number of strategies that a player at any level can implement and be successful against a similarly skilled opponent. Blitz, turtle, hawk, octopus, attrition, resource deprivation, experimental rush, long range (nukes, artillery), fire base push, naval supremacy, base infiltration .. you name it.

Fedaykin
04-17-2011, 03:10 PM
I couldn't disagree with this more. There are a million possible build orders int his game - the thought that there is only one viable way to play this game doesn't even register with me. There's an endless number of opportunities for diverse game play. Everything you've said is totally foriegn to my experience playing and observing the game.

Build order != strategy

The only viable strategy in Starcraft is expand and attack and hope to hell you built just the right mix of units to deal with all your enemies and that you can click faster than your opponent. There's variation in the details and specific tactics -- but no real variation of the strategy.

For example, there is simply no opportunity for a defensive/attrition based strategy, a naval strategy (hard to have that with no naval units, ha!) or long range bombardment, etc.

(btw: I've played and have enjoyed all the variations of Starcraft. It's fun, but not particularly satisfying as a strategy game. It's a tactics/micro game)

Willynowei
04-17-2011, 10:34 PM
Looks like I struck a nerve.



The problem with Starcraft is that games always end the same way at most levels of play. Either someone gets out RPSd or runs out of resources. There's very little of back and forth you talk about for 95% of game play levels (that's what makes the games quick!). Pretty much every Supcom game I've played with roughly equal opponents has had a ton of back and forth -- primarily because the value per unit is much lower and thus losing your 50%+ control limit army is damaging but not a knock out punch (due in large part to the fact that that army didn't die without doing significant damage itself).

Supcom is not a defensive, nor necessarily a macro oriented game. It can be (successfully) played that way -- it can also be successfully played with a multitude of other strategies at all game play levels. It depends a lot on the size and terrain of the map as well as the faction you play. For example, Cybran can be played immensely successfully at a micro level due to the stealth and unit make up of the faction (it's always fun to build an invisible fire base behind your enemy's line!).

And the argument from popularity is moot. Does McDonald's produce the best hamburger in the world? No.



I agree, if you play Starcraft 12 hours a day, 7 days a week you can come up with some interesting game play scenarios based on enormous skill at tactical micro management. Personally, I prefer NOT to drop that much time into a single activity -- but to each his own.

It also appears you agree that micro is the key to Starcraft.



Expansion and aggression is not "bad" -- if you'd read carefully you'd note my objection was that it is the only really viable strategy in Starcraft. In Supcom, for instance, you can successfully be a turtle and win the match via a strategy of attrition -- if you want. You can also win by fully embracing the blitz strategy. For two roughly equal players, either (and everything in between) is a viable strategy depending on the circumstance.

In Starcraft, if you do anything but some minor variation of the "expand and attack" strategy you are dead meat because you must continually expand to continue fighting due to the resource model.


Not to the absurd level that Starcraft does. In Starcraft you can greatly outnumber your opponent and still lose without the opponent taking a single loss -- if the army he brings to bear is rocks and all you had was scissors.

Supcom certainly has RPS. If I send my army at you without AA capability, you can wipe it out without much trouble if you have a strong air capability.

The difference is:

* There are no hard/absolute/absurd counters except where it's obvious (e.g. short range ground attack units being unable to attack a battleship). There's, for example, no hopeless zergling vs. hellion ground unit mismatch.

* Defense is actually viable -- and proper defensive formations can be an effective (though not perfect) counter to any RPS.

This setup provides for a lot better "back and forth" because you're never going to have an overwhelming advantage (value per value) over your opponent simply because of luck. In a good game, everything has a counter, but nothing provides an absolute counter (value per value).

In Supcom (not the abomination that is the second one) there's an indefinite number of strategies that a player at any level can implement and be successful against a similarly skilled opponent. Blitz, turtle, hawk, octopus, attrition, resource deprivation, experimental rush, long range (nukes, artillery), fire base push, naval supremacy, base infiltration .. you name it.


What you fail to see is that in the long run the limited resource model just expedites the fight and increases pace, it changes nothing with respect to depth.

You named 10 things, but they are just fancy ways of saying 3 things, expand, aggro, defend.

Aggro includes harassment and pushes. Experimental unit rush? thats a timed push, no different than pushing with colossus with thermal lance completed. Base infiltration? thats a harass, no different than a banshee or a helion. Long range Artillery? Dude that's positional aggro, like a tank getting into position to fire down at the opponent. Things just happen differently in Supcom. If you scout artillery, you still have to push and drop that position, no different than in SC where if you spot tanks, you have to push with charge lots to kill them. The only difference is that things happen over minutes or hours in SupCom but seconds in SC2. Really, you scout artillery thats in reach of your power plant, you have 10 minutes to knock it out before his little defensive position is finished building and you lose your freakin base. What is so different between that and seeing a photon cannon in range of your Nexus? The fact that you have 3 seconds to react vs. 3 minutes? Seriously, its the same thing.

You are all about this resource model idea of infinite resources, but it really makes no difference at all. Guess what, your goals are still to expand whenever possible, because expansion--> more resources--> Stronger army.

There's only so much of those infinite resource pools on each map in SupCom, and if you turtle, the direct counter is to grab a couple extra ones to gain an advantage. If the other guy over expands, you punish with push or harass with bombers, if you over extend your push and get in range of his defensive artillery/missle, ur screwed. Thus, Defense > Aggro > Expand >Defense. Its RPS, its just slower because maps are bigger and ur SupCommander is near invincible to tier 1 units.

Oh and all that stuff you talk about with regard to nukes and game ending weapons that can be gotten if you play defensive? There's a term for that --> Teching. Teching to Experimental units first for a push is no different than teching to psi storm or Colossus. The only difference is that SupCom unravels slowly, and it makes lesser players feel like they are doing something.

Your point about 2 "evenly" matched players having more back and forth fights is simply because lower level players have more trouble killing each other off and exploiting weaknesses in a game built for defense, whereas in a game like SC2 lower tier players simply go for all-in strategies because they can't handle mid game macro with less forgiving mechanical requirements.

When good RTS players play Supcom, mistakes will be punished just as heavily as when good players play SC2, its just the slow place is much more forgiving for new players and makes them feel like they are making cool decisions as they play the game like its Sim City. The difference is that the shift comes quicker, and guess what, for MOST people that's more exciting.

As for your units example: if you're trying to say that certain builds hard counter others and its about guessing correctly, then that's ludicrous. There are plenty of stub builds in SC2 for each matchup that have NO HARD COUNTERS, ie, you can't win or lose because you guessed wrong.

Zerglings don't go out alone, that's like saying tanks go out without Anti-air in SupCom, its a ludicrous concept. SC2 has unit mixes just like SupCom, you don't just build zerglings and thats it.

Willynowei
04-17-2011, 10:43 PM
Build order != strategy

The only viable strategy in Starcraft is expand and attack and hope to hell you built just the right mix of units to deal with all your enemies and that you can click faster than your opponent. There's variation in the details and specific tactics -- but no real variation of the strategy.

For example, there is simply no opportunity for a defensive/attrition based strategy, a naval strategy (hard to have that with no naval units, ha!) or long range bombardment, etc.

(btw: I've played and have enjoyed all the variations of Starcraft. It's fun, but not particularly satisfying as a strategy game. It's a tactics/micro game)

So, if you go naval and your opponent has his little scout fly over your base and sees it, and decides to do a massive land assault before your navy can start taking over the game, what do you call that?

And oh, how is that different to SC2 where you try to pump out early air for harass or a push, and you get pushed by a well timed attack?

Here's the thing, I don't think you even know the game you're pushing for here. SupCom has its set of timings just like SC2, if you knew them, you would know that everything in SupCom has a counter, and if your opponent knew you were going nuke/naval/expirmental and knew what the hell they were doing, you would never, ever get the strategy off.

SC2 is no different. And oh BTW, I can guarantee you that any pro Korean Starcraft player can pick up SupCom and dominate it in a month simply because of their click speed. If you don't think Click speed matters in a game like SupCom or TA where you've got maps the size of planets you're absolutely kidding yourself. Take a 300 APM S class SC2 player and teach him how SupCom works, he use simple mechanics like long range ground units such as tier 1 artillery and mini bombers and he will contain and harass the hell out of his opponent and expand everywhere twice as quickly, without allowing them to tech or setup defenses because he will have timings memorized and know that if he hits you at X minutes, X seconds, you can't have anti air up until XX minutes, X seconds.

SupCom is a game where APM might matter more than SC2 believe it or not, because the combat theater is absolutely huge. At some point in that game both players have staked out their territory, and the battle goes out onto multiple fronts, at some point optimization will matter, whether its using the engineerer to boost the resource node, or to boost building speed, little advantages add up to perfect timing.

So no, you're never going to find a REAL TIME strategy game that doesn't rely on APM. Not the relic games, not Chris Taylor games, not Blizzard games, they are all balanced and technical games where a talented, practiced player with high "click speed" and basic understanding can crush "creative play" if you can't match on mechanics. Just how it works man, its like asking for a shooter where aiming doesn't matter, although I'm assuming SupCom is balanced because TA supposedly was. I could be wrong, over time people might've found strategies for SupCom that were overpowered.

Taco John
04-18-2011, 12:22 AM
Build order != strategy

No one said it did. The order isn't what's important, the reason why you're building things is what's important, and that's where strategy comes into play.


The only viable strategy in Starcraft is expand and attack and hope to hell you built just the right mix of units to deal with all your enemies and that you can click faster than your opponent. There's variation in the details and specific tactics -- but no real variation of the strategy.

That's not true at all. There is everything from rush strategies, to one base strategies, to fast expand strategies, to full on macro battles. And there's no room for "hope" in Starcraft - it's all about scouting and knowing what your opponent is building. If you're building units blindly, you're not using strategy, I'll give you that. But that's not high level play.


For example, there is simply no opportunity for a defensive/attrition based strategy, a naval strategy (hard to have that with no naval units, ha!) or long range bombardment, etc.

I disagree. There are plenty of people on the ladder who employ defensive/attrition based strategy, turtling up while harassing with drop play. Your criticisms of the game run counter to my experience with it. Starcraft, if anything, is a delicate balance between micro and macro, and expanding, attacking, defending. There is tons of strategy involved in the game, knowing when to push, when to macro, when to harass, etc. The game is so intricate because little decisions made early on affect the entire course of the game - and scouting these decisions made by your opponent could mean the difference between a win and a loss.

Willynowei
04-18-2011, 02:59 PM
I'm in Silver(So worth getting out of Bronze just to get away from the Cannon rushing a-holes). Lemme know if you wanna play some time.

You know what really sucks? Is when you get to high Diamond/break Master league and you realize that it is in that league that cannon rushes are the most deadly, because you're so worried about all the other stuff that can go wrong.

The other day I played a guy twice on custom (he was a diamond I think) and I usually scout on 13 in PvP because I'm worried about getting my economy ahead, and he had his cannon crawl setup properly by the time I saw it. I actually won that game because I managed to mine the farthest patches to get enough minerals for two stalkers and a second nexus, and he didn't block my ramp. Built a new base while I picked off his probes and zealots one by one, and managed to win.

Very next game, he goes a normal 4 gate, but hides his pylon and gateway at the very edge of his base, I scout an empty base and rush out 4 probes to find his probe, then saw him drop a gas, and saw the hidden gateway. And that bit delayed my warpgate tech by roughly 20 seconds, and lost me the game. Now I check EVERYWHERE when I scout LOL

Freaking swinging watch towers and naturals like a champ :approve:

Willynowei
04-18-2011, 03:07 PM
No one said it did. The order isn't what's important, the reason why you're building things is what's important, and that's where strategy comes into play.




That's not true at all. There is everything from rush strategies, to one base strategies, to fast expand strategies, to full on macro battles. And there's no room for "hope" in Starcraft - it's all about scouting and knowing what your opponent is building. If you're building units blindly, you're not using strategy, I'll give you that. But that's not high level play.




I disagree. There are plenty of people on the ladder who employ defensive/attrition based strategy, turtling up while harassing with drop play. Your criticisms of the game run counter to my experience with it. Starcraft, if anything, is a delicate balance between micro and macro, and expanding, attacking, defending. There is tons of strategy involved in the game, knowing when to push, when to macro, when to harass, etc. The game is so intricate because little decisions made early on affect the entire course of the game - and scouting these decisions made by your opponent could mean the difference between a win and a loss.

His responses give me the sense that he's really complaining about the heavy requirements on mechanics before strategy really takes effect in Starcraft. SupCom is really automated, imagine if you could hold shift and tell a scv to build 10 supply depots, but only pay for a supply depo as its building, so you never have to look at the SCV again and can leave it alone for the rest of the game, thats basically SupCom. You can hold shift and do everything automatically, so in that sense, its just easier to get into the strategy, whereas SC2 requires you to manage your base and units more carefully.

The thing is though, that doesn't make one game more or less strategic than the other, it just makes the barrier to entry higher. In fact, the size of the community for both SC games prove how deep they are, whereas SupCom, unlike its predecessor TA, never really had a competitive community, so who knows if the strategies are viable/balanced. If anything, SC2 is proven to be a deep strategy game, whereas SupCom is not.

UberBroncoMan
04-18-2011, 03:27 PM
This argument is fascinating. No sarcasm.

Taco John
04-18-2011, 09:53 PM
This argument is fascinating. No sarcasm.

You should see some of the game theory arguments then... LOL.

I love the game, and especially love the eSport aspect of it. There are some seriously good players out there and watching the way they control these armies is a lot of fun sometimes.

Taco John
04-18-2011, 09:58 PM
His responses give me the sense that he's really complaining about the heavy requirements on mechanics before strategy really takes effect in Starcraft. SupCom is really automated, imagine if you could hold shift and tell a scv to build 10 supply depots, but only pay for a supply depo as its building, so you never have to look at the SCV again and can leave it alone for the rest of the game, thats basically SupCom. You can hold shift and do everything automatically, so in that sense, its just easier to get into the strategy, whereas SC2 requires you to manage your base and units more carefully.

The thing is though, that doesn't make one game more or less strategic than the other, it just makes the barrier to entry higher. In fact, the size of the community for both SC games prove how deep they are, whereas SupCom, unlike its predecessor TA, never really had a competitive community, so who knows if the strategies are viable/balanced. If anything, SC2 is proven to be a deep strategy game, whereas SupCom is not.


Yeah, I think that this smacks of a mechanics complaint rather than a strategy complaint. It's absolutely true that it's difficult for the newcomer to immerse themselves in the strategy of the game because you need to have good mechanics to get there... but to me, that's the beauty of the game, and what makes it a great eSport.

Willynowei
04-18-2011, 10:18 PM
You should see some of the game theory arguments then... LOL.

I love the game, and especially love the eSport aspect of it. There are some seriously good players out there and watching the way they control these armies is a lot of fun sometimes.
Have you seen this match? It might be the most important series so far of TSL, maybe even the most exciting:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qq6UP7NqItk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This style of play, experimented by a Korean pro, then adopted by Nony (Liquid Tyler) and taken to the extreme by Adel Scott is relatively new to the pro scene and it is quickly changing the PvT landscape.

The idea that Protoss can Chrono Boost level +2 armor upgrades for zealots by the time Terran gets up level 1 weapons is insane, and causing a lot of "Protoss is overpowered threads."

A Marine does 6 base damage to a zealot. +2 armor, +2 guardian shield drops that down to 2 damage. Its like being attacked by a worker...

Taco John
04-18-2011, 10:19 PM
Have you seen this match? It might be the most important series so far of TSL, maybe even the most exciting:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qq6UP7NqItk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This style of play, experimented by a Korean pro, then adopted by Nony (Liquid Tyler) and taken to the extreme by Adel Scott is relatively new to the pro scene and it is quickly changing the PvT landscape.

The idea that Protoss can Chrono Boost level +2 armor upgrades for zealots by the time Terran gets up level 1 weapons is insane, and causing a lot of "Protoss is overpowered threads."

A Marine does 6 base damage to a zealot. +2 armor, +2 guardian shield drops that down to 2 damage. Its like being shot by a SCV...

I play zerg, so as far as I'm concerned, everything is OP! lol

I watched that game out of the corner of my eye, but I don't follow ZvT very closely because I'm more interested in ZvX.

Nony has been playing like hell lately.

Willynowei
04-18-2011, 10:28 PM
I play zerg, so as far as I'm concerned, everything is OP! lol

Haha I feel ya. But my honest opinion with Zerg is that its most well known and maybe its best player (Idra) is a guy who is a perfectionist, but not an innovator.

Zerg really needs some creative players that are willing to try different things, Spanishiwa's new build looks scary as all hell: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213397

and here is the build:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=207017

Although I will say, Zerg is really freaking hard to play even "okay" with. I think all races get tough to play well, but Zerg is hardest to do the basics with.

Below: Spanishiwa domination.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yHEByyvW7II" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Taco John
04-18-2011, 11:09 PM
I've been doing Spanishiwa's build for some time now. I don't do it exclusively, but I do mix it in. I've been experimenting with Nydus worms lately. I've got a 4 worm strategy that I've been working on. The problem is that it's hard to get it all set up. It's very micro intensive, and one mistake is usually game over.

I've been having fun with this Roach to Ultralisk build lately. That build is a ton of fun against Protoss! :)

Taco John
04-19-2011, 01:14 AM
Haha I feel ya. But my honest opinion with Zerg is that its most well known and maybe its best player (Idra) is a guy who is a perfectionist, but not an innovator.


As someone who follows him, I think I disagree with that. IdrA has done a lot of innovation. His recent roach timing build for MLG was actually pretty impressive, and it would have won him the game vs. Huk if he would have waited until that battle finished instead of rage quitting. There's no doubt that IdrA is his own worst enemy, but I still think he's an innovator.

I think a lot of problems that zerg is having right now would be solved if they brought back lurkers, and forced the other factions to use detection against zerg like in Brood War. Terrans don't build Ravens as part of their assault team. Protoss only build observers because it's their primary scouting unit (another problem that zerg has - it's infinitely easier to scout as Protoss or Terran). I think they put a lot of design into Protoss and Terran and skimped on the zerg. That's why they're doing Heart of the Swarm next - to finally get the Zerg race up to the same competitive level as the other two races. Sucks for zerg players, and especially zerg pros. But I think when Zergs finally have better tools to work with, they are going to own because of playing an underpowered race all this time and the training that has gotten them.

Willynowei
04-19-2011, 07:42 AM
As someone who follows him, I think I disagree with that. IdrA has done a lot of innovation. His recent roach timing build for MLG was actually pretty impressive, and it would have won him the game vs. Huk if he would have waited until that battle finished instead of rage quitting. There's no doubt that IdrA is his own worst enemy, but I still think he's an innovator.

I think a lot of problems that zerg is having right now would be solved if they brought back lurkers, and forced the other factions to use detection against zerg like in Brood War. Terrans don't build Ravens as part of their assault team. Protoss only build observers because it's their primary scouting unit (another problem that zerg has - it's infinitely easier to scout as Protoss or Terran). I think they put a lot of design into Protoss and Terran and skimped on the zerg. That's why they're doing Heart of the Swarm next - to finally get the Zerg race up to the same competitive level as the other two races. Sucks for zerg players, and especially zerg pros. But I think when Zergs finally have better tools to work with, they are going to own because of playing an underpowered race all this time and the training that has gotten them.


Well, roaches and tunneling claws force observers, and Protoss can't force Ravens even with DT drops because of Terran's redonkulous turret sight range and sensor sweeps.

The mentality of Zergs in worrying about what they cant do relative to T and P is exactly the problem. The way to think about it is, what CAN zerg do that the other 2 cannot? With respect to scouting, Zerg can have vision of the entire map with creep tumor, ovies, and burrowed lings. They know their opponents expansion timings and can delay it with a 25 mineral burrowed zergling - thats rediculous!

Toss cannot scout a turtling terran with turrets at all, and Terran CANNOT scout anyone without a 300 mineral scan. If Zerg suicides 3 ovies you don't think they can get the same information? But they dont!

I think its just hard to call a race under powered 2 months after the last patch and when GSL 1 was rolled by Fruitdealer (before the patches in Zergs favor) and GSL4 had July zerg in the finals.

Idra is just so stubborn about overpowering his opponent. And that's not a good thing man, he's so freaking predictable, and even the most mechanically sound players in the other races - Ogs. MC, Tester (P), MarineKing, IMMVP (T), they will all-in you blindly every once in a while to punish repeatedly greedy or screwy play.

Idra doesn't adapt well because of this stubbornness, he just wants to do his thing and crush you no matter what, classic Korean. But SC2 is new, and its mechanics favor creativity more than BW, and so a lot of BW players are b****ing about oh, we need this we need that. That's bullcrap, BW is a bajillion years old, SC2 is new, so guess what you have to adapt to unorthodox builds.


The best example I can give is Morrow's upset of Jinro. Jinro twice tried to expand triple rax FE and got baneling busted twice against Morrow. That's also the style of a July Zerg, I'm not going to macro zerg just because you think I will, i'm going to screw with your head when I get a chance too.

Now look at Cruncher's game vs. Idra:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8vf6e-iDECs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Forge FE into Stargate and Idra goes straight to macro mode because he is so damn confident that he's going to roll cruncher. But LOOK at the block. Forge, gateway, cybernetics core. Dude that's all his tech out front, and what would make a player so confident to put his tech buildings in front of a block where they can all get obliterated and set him back for the game? - he knows this is the way Idra is playing recently and Idra doesn't change for guys he perceive are sh*tty.

Now watch that video late game, where Idra really had the game won. He sees Voidray Colossus Stalker ball - the ball of doom, great, call it whatever you want, but he had creep spread up to the protoss frontdoor and what does he do? He pushes at the front repeatedly and IGNORES photon cannons.

Meanwhile he has nearly half his supply in drones and doesn't build a single spine crawler despite having like 5 to 6 thousand extra minerals in midgame because he's maxed and sitting on every base in the map.

He then throws his corrupters into their direct counters - Voidrays, and throws his ground army into the death ball! At the second battle, Idra sends all his corrupters at the opponnets Voidrays, and refuses to target fire the colossus. Why would anyone do that? Stubborn!

I can tell you, any of the more creative zergs such as spanishiwa or fruitdealer would've taken extra drones and planted down some spine crawlers to slow movement of the protoss ball and gotten an ass ton of 1 supply banelings to come in from all directions. IF you notice, the guy only had 4 colossus, and in mass, that entire army would've been rolled by banelings.

That's just stupid, I can't even count the amount of times IDra dominates his opponent and throws a lead away because he gets arrogant.

Watch the first cast by artosis where Idra plays Boxer, watch how arrogant Idra is all game, he ignores all the terran drops and actually chases those drops with his entire army of ultras, and never splits up his army when could've just sent a few hydras or built some spine crawlers to stop the drops cheaply.

Idra always does this, he gets ahead on macro and ignores micro. Against MC, he sent all his brood lords to kill the probe line. MC blinks the stalkers into them and when Idra tries to engage the stalkers, MC storms the hydras to death to complete a game where Idra was yet again ahead.

Game here:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9c2Kc2VAFp8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

First off - Idra could've easily sent 1 brood lord from the left flank in that game and forced MC to attack from all the way around, and just rolled him, but he doesn't.

Second - he was ahead in that game against the world best player playing toss. How is zerg UP if they can get a lead midgame vs. a superior player?

At that point in the game, Idra had the right army mix and was way ahead in everything but tech!

Keep in mind MC is a monster, but Idra getting that lead despite ignoring ALL of his queens dieing to phoenix harass and delaying hydra tech and spore crawlers is an amazing testament to just how GOOD the zerg race is.



Clearly I'm not an Idra fan, I think is great mechanically but he always loses to unorthodox builds, and constantly makes micro mistakes that he could avoid if he respected his opponent and valued his units more.

Idra has made builds, the creep spread hydra rush comes to mind. But they are all power builds, and they are all safe and Traditional (he got the creep spread from some other guy who did a Ovie creep highway with spinecrawlers). Zerg needs more players figuring out unorthodox, harass based strategies, spanishiwa's build is great not just because he skips gas, its great because he's constantly harassing you with lings and banelings. It puts pressure on the opposing player, where as Idra's style is almost always build build build up to X:XX and roll you.

Idra really harasses and focuses on micro early game and in late game he's probably so confident in his winrate that he doesn't conserve units.

Look at adelscott v. MVp in the post earlier, he conserved 150/50 stalkers like they were carriers!

Willynowei
04-19-2011, 08:13 AM
Zerg needs more guys like this:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WrfzEO2yTe0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


That's not just hundreds of hours of practice on macro. That's game sense, creativity, micro and being super aggressive, and that's how you win GSL BEFORE the balance patches favoring zerg.

Taco John
04-19-2011, 08:58 AM
I think its just hard to call a race under powered 2 months after the last patch and when GSL 1 was rolled by Fruitdealer (before the patches in Zergs favor) and GSL4 had July zerg in the finals.

I do. I play the race and know that it's ridiculously underpowered. Fruitdealer isn't winning anything anymore now that Terran and Protoss have figured out how to use their units. JulyZerg made it to the finals with some gimmicks, but once he got there, was completely uncompetitive despite his considerable skill. It's so much easier to play as Protoss and Terran than it is Zerg. Their units have much more utility. Not to mention, they have ground based seige units and Zerg had theirs nerfed from the game.

I think that there are plenty of zergs trying to get better, but they play a race with a low ceiling. There's only so much that they can do before the hit a brick wall.... Or as it were, a wall of tanks or collossi.

Willynowei
04-19-2011, 09:21 AM
I do. I play the race and know that it's ridiculously underpowered. Fruitdealer isn't winning anything anymore now that Terran and Protoss have figured out how to use their units. JulyZerg made it to the finals with some gimmicks, but once he got there, was completely uncompetitive despite his considerable skill. It's so much easier to play as Protoss and Terran than it is Zerg. Their units have much more utility. Not to mention, they have ground based seige units and Zerg had theirs nerfed from the game.

I think that there are plenty of zergs trying to get better, but they play a race with a low ceiling. There's only so much that they can do before the hit a brick wall.... Or as it were, a wall of tanks or collossi.

Yes, Terran and Toss units are stronger head on, they should be. Leave zerg alone for 10 minutes and they have full map control and double your supply, that's not something either T or P can do.

I have to correct you on difficulty. It is harder to do basic things as Zerg, but to be good at any of the 3 races is similarly tough.

You talk about zerg players trying to "get better". Thats exactly the problem, they all emulate the macro up playstyle and its not carrying the race forward.

And fruitdealers lack of recent success could just be a slump, its not like he isn't qualifying for GSL, he's just getting knocked out before final four and I think he's still code S. July Zerg is rocking people, and yeah he's losing to the top guys from the other races (really just MC) but those top guys were ranked as high or higher in broodwar as well, so its no like you have Jaedong switching to SC2 and losing to an unknown Protoss.

And I'm not saying Zerg is perfectly balanced, I'm saying that we have no way to tell considering 1.3 JUST launched. I think anything else is over reaching. Terran just got their stim timings nerfed, Protoss just got Templars nerferd, so give it some time.

Also, I understand you play Z, but as a P player here is my perspective:

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-203887.jpg (http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/replays.php?game=33&show=download&id=203887)

I had a 40 supply advantage and lost due to a couple stupid mistakes (my laptop can't handle a lot of units so in big battles it lags and I can't forcefield or micro), but he was clearly the weaker player (IMO), and beat me entirely on a hydra feint. Also, you said Toss doesn't need to have observers with its main army due to lack of lurkers, well thats not my experience here, he punished me badly with the roaches.

Also, I mean this guy had sub 50 APM for most of the game and was still mid diamond? I just don't buy that zerg is UP yet, I think we need to give them some time!

Taco John
04-19-2011, 10:31 AM
This is how I feel about Protoss/Terran vs Zerg:

http://i.imgur.com/NI7Ef.jpg

I don't kid myself into thinking that a Protoss or Terran player could ever really appreciate how underpowered Zerg is in comparison to the tools that they have. You can't really appreciate it until you've played 100 games as Zerg and then switched over to play Protoss or Terran. It's like playing in easy mode. There's no other way to put it. But you'd have to actually put in the time to understand the difference.

Willynowei
04-19-2011, 11:07 AM
This is how I feel about Protoss/Terran vs Zerg:

http://i.imgur.com/NI7Ef.jpg

I don't kid myself into thinking that a Protoss or Terran player could ever really appreciate how underpowered Zerg is in comparison to the tools that they have. You can't really appreciate it until you've played 100 games as Zerg and then switched over to play Protoss or Terran. It's like playing in easy mode. There's no other way to put it. But you'd have to actually put in the time to understand the difference.

Sweet picture LOL

But, I keep getting reminded of a couple things when I hear these arguments.

1.) Idra saying Morrow is Noob for playing Terran when they were the beefiest race, and Idra just got knocked out of TSL by an unknown toss, while morrow, who recently switched to zerg, just took out a S class protoss.

You realize, Morrrow sucked in tournaments with Terran right? He actually has done BETTER as zerg.

2.) Non of the top zergs, not Dimaga, July, Cool, or Idra have switched from Zerg despite numerous threats and a ton of money on the line. This is despite switching on ladder and games that don't count to see how they really do as the other races.

3.) To really prove your point, Zerg players would have to play random and demonstrate a significantly higher win rate in T and P than Z. That just hasn't happened.

A good player is a good player man, I have messed around with the races enough to know they are all hard to play WELL. Switch to Terran and try to hellion micro, Switch to protoss and actually try to do that "easy" forcefield at the bottom of the ramp vs. Terran, and see how unnerving it is to multitask but fear not seeing your ramp at all times incase of a stimmed push. If he gets up the ramp, game over, if you forcefield too early and run out of energy, game over.

Willynowei
04-26-2011, 07:58 AM
PTR 1.3.3 has been announced.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=216605

Taco, looks like you will be getting a nice little buff to spore crawlers, warp gates nerfed, bunkers nerfed, and ghosts cost is semi-buffed (probably to counter infestor play)

Definitely a small buff to zerg, and clearly they are trying to get rid of so much 4 gate play.


Also, if this video doesn't say that Zerg is not weak, but just used wrong then I don't know what to say. Cruncher just beat Idra and Morrow back to back at TSL and played a super tight game here... Creative play is whats needed by Zerg, and this video proves it.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kztSU7gDItA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>