I frankly don't care if Nestea and DRG share the same sentiments, I don't think PvZ is Protoss favoured and the stats clearly back me up on that. ZvP has always been DRG's and Idra's worst MU anywho, so I would take what they say with a grain of salt.
And just because Stephano does well doesn't make the match-up fine, either.
I'm not taking sides on the debate. I think the match-up is polarizing because the results are largely dictated by the small moments of the game rather than your play over the course of the entire game. So you'll end up with zergs that feel slighted like Nestea/DRG/Idra and you'll end up with zergs that dominate like Stephano.
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
Not to mention as controversial as his blunt statements are (Zerg can't win against Protoss), it turns out that other pros share similar opinions but tend to not vocalize them as strongly.
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
He's a good player and some people find his attitude and all the drama surrounding him amusing.
amusing... i'm not sure that word means what you think it does....
he's an asshat. he's a child in a man's body who can't look introspectively. every time he loses, it's because the other players are terrible and did stupid things that no one would do. he's inflexible in his playstyle, and when people plan for it, he doesn't change.
He's a good player and some people find his attitude and all the drama surrounding him amusing.
amusing... i'm not sure that word means what you think it does....
he's an asshat. he's a child in a man's body who can't look introspectively. every time he loses, it's because the other players are terrible and did stupid things that no one would do. he's inflexible in his playstyle, and when people plan for it, he doesn't change.
I frankly don't care if Nestea and DRG share the same sentiments, I don't think PvZ is Protoss favoured and the stats clearly back me up on that. ZvP has always been DRG's and Idra's worst MU anywho, so I would take what they say with a grain of salt.
And just because Stephano does well doesn't make the match-up fine, either.
I'm not taking sides on the debate. I think the match-up is polarizing because the results are largely dictated by the small moments of the game rather than your play over the course of the entire game. So you'll end up with zergs that feel slighted like Nestea/DRG/Idra and you'll end up with zergs that dominate like Stephano.
I don't mean to indicate that Stephano being a monster in ZvP means it isn't Protoss favoured, but I do think Idra should take a look at how he plays and figure out why Stephano is having so much more success in the match-up. I do agree that the entire course of a PvZ game often resolves around one or two moments, but I think that is because a lot of Protoss still rely on timing attacks without a good follow-up into a macro game. The MU has slowly been developing and allowing for longer and more evenly matched macro games and I expect the trend to continue.
I think some people are amused by the "Idra's greatest hits" video, but it just makes me dislike the guy all the more. Why openly disrespect people on your stream?
Also, I think Idra could stand to read this: Sirlin Excerpt
He seems stuck on one vision of how to play the game. In an environment where scouting and information is the biggest part of the game, knowing your opponent will go ling-muta every game is a huge advantage.
I frankly don't care if Nestea and DRG share the same sentiments, I don't think PvZ is Protoss favoured and the stats clearly back me up on that. ZvP has always been DRG's and Idra's worst MU anywho, so I would take what they say with a grain of salt.
And just because Stephano does well doesn't make the match-up fine, either.
I'm not taking sides on the debate. I think the match-up is polarizing because the results are largely dictated by the small moments of the game rather than your play over the course of the entire game. So you'll end up with zergs that feel slighted like Nestea/DRG/Idra and you'll end up with zergs that dominate like Stephano.
I don't mean to indicate that Stephano being a monster in ZvP means it isn't Protoss favoured, but I do think Idra should take a look at how he plays and figure out why Stephano is having so much more success in the match-up. I do agree that the entire course of a PvZ game often resolves around one or two moments, but I think that is because a lot of Protoss still rely on timing attacks without a good follow-up into a macro game. The MU has slowly been developing and allowing for longer and more evenly matched macro games and I expect the trend to continue.
The counter-arguments (not necessarily all related) to that are that (1) according to TLPD int'l, Stephano's playing against bad protoss, (2) Stephano's style is not proven --- i.e., if it were as easy as what Stephano's doing then DRG and Nestea wouldn't be complaining, (3) Stephano's style hasn't transmitted downstream yet, e.g., koreans aren't aware of what Stephano's doing, and (4) Stephano's style doesn't translate well to GSL-level protoss.
But besides all those points, I think you're right. The match-up is evolving and I'm not worried that things will balance themselves out, i.e., just because Idra/DRG/Nestea say that the MU is favoring protoss now doesn't mean in a few days or a month that'll change without intervention from Blizzard.
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
0
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
I need a zerg practice partner.
Also protoss.
Just need to be able to practice with no pressure.
I don't play at a pro level by any means but protoss is definitely my hardest matchup right now. Those monthly results surprise me.
They are a summary of pro games. Have you tried making mutalisks?
Not really. My harassment skills are very lacking. And I never seem to be able to get out a decent number of them before the protoss comes knocking at my door.
fatalspoons on
0
TannerMS "I'm confidence cause I'm zerg!"Registered Userregular
edited February 2012
I don't remember the last time I won a game vP where I didn't do a stupid all-in. I feel like pre-broodlords, every unit I have just evaporates against every protoss unit. I'm not sure what I should be trying because nothing has worked. If there is a point in the game where I'm forced to fight, I'm dead. Remaxing doesn't help when 200/200 of anything dies without inflicting any casualties
I spent hours last week watching Stephano replays/vods and people just seem to have less stuff against him than they do against me and I have no idea why.
I don't remember the last time I won a game vP where I didn't do a stupid all-in. I feel like pre-broodlords, every unit I have just evaporates against every protoss unit. I'm not sure what I should be trying because nothing has worked. If there is a point in the game where I'm forced to fight, I'm dead. Remaxing doesn't help when 200/200 of anything dies without inflicting any casualties
I spent hours last week watching Stephano replays/vods and people just seem to have less stuff against him than they do against me and I have no idea why.
At a high-level, I view the evolution of zvp going in the direction of Z acting like T in TvZ. What we consider all-in is really standard mid-game aggression (be it multiprong attacks, mutas, or drops) to keep protoss honest. Stephano's genius is that he's striking the right balance between aggression and all-ining without resorting to mutas to do it.
Coincidentally, I think this hits on why mutas end up being so successful for zerg. It forces Z to act aggressive in the mid-game while also macroing up because it's physically difficult to "all-in" with muta.
Kambing on
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
I don't remember the last time I won a game vP where I didn't do a stupid all-in. I feel like pre-broodlords, every unit I have just evaporates against every protoss unit. I'm not sure what I should be trying because nothing has worked. If there is a point in the game where I'm forced to fight, I'm dead. Remaxing doesn't help when 200/200 of anything dies without inflicting any casualties
I spent hours last week watching Stephano replays/vods and people just seem to have less stuff against him than they do against me and I have no idea why.
At a high-level, I view the evolution of zvp going in the direction of Z acting like T in TvZ. What we consider all-in is really standard mid-game aggression (be it multiprong attacks, mutas, or drops) to keep protoss honest. Stephano's genius is that he's striking the right balance between aggression and all-ining without resorting to mutas to do it.
Coincidentally, I think this hits on why mutas end up being so successful for zerg. It forces Z to act aggressive in the mid-game while also macroing up because it's physically difficult to "all-in" with muta.
I just want to build a 200 army of roaches and A-move. Is that so much to ask?
I don't remember the last time I won a game vP where I didn't do a stupid all-in. I feel like pre-broodlords, every unit I have just evaporates against every protoss unit. I'm not sure what I should be trying because nothing has worked. If there is a point in the game where I'm forced to fight, I'm dead. Remaxing doesn't help when 200/200 of anything dies without inflicting any casualties
I spent hours last week watching Stephano replays/vods and people just seem to have less stuff against him than they do against me and I have no idea why.
At a high-level, I view the evolution of zvp going in the direction of Z acting like T in TvZ. What we consider all-in is really standard mid-game aggression (be it multiprong attacks, mutas, or drops) to keep protoss honest. Stephano's genius is that he's striking the right balance between aggression and all-ining without resorting to mutas to do it.
Coincidentally, I think this hits on why mutas end up being so successful for zerg. It forces Z to act aggressive in the mid-game while also macroing up because it's physically difficult to "all-in" with muta.
I just want to build a 200 army of roaches and A-move. Is that so much to ask?
As long as you're 200/200 on speed roach at 2/1 on 3-moving-to-4-base at the 13 minute mark, then you're golden. ^_^
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
0
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
DRG says whether it's PvZ or PvT, the deadliness of immortals depend entirely on the 'skill' of forcefields. If the toss fails with FFs, P loses, if not, P wins.
It can go either way in the MU, but games are typically determined at very precise moments that can be frustrating to lose as a result on either side.
I will gladly shit on DRG AND Nestea for having that sentiment, because it's demonstrably false.
Honestly, protoss is just crazy reliant on forcefields and unit synergy, which is why both PvX mathcups are usually decided in one big fight. Either the protoss wins and keeps rolling, or they lose and can't get back to the mix of units they need for them to be that powerful.
DRG says whether it's PvZ or PvT, the deadliness of immortals depend entirely on the 'skill' of forcefields. If the toss fails with FFs, P loses, if not, P wins.
It can go either way in the MU, but games are typically determined at very precise moments that can be frustrating to lose as a result on either side.
I will gladly shit on DRG AND Nestea for having that sentiment, because it's demonstrably false.
False for who? I take it that they are accurately representing the sentiments of the top GSL-level pro zergs out there. And from listening to streams, they aren't the only ones grumbling about the difficulty of the MU. It just happens that they did so on Twitter and Greg did it in an interview.
But regardless, this is why talking about balance in general terms is a bad idea.
(1) Balance is framed within the context of who you play against, e.g., what is balanced for diamond isn't necessarily balanced for the GSL and vice versa.
(2) Balance is framed within the context of when you play, e.g., what was fine a few months ago may not be balanced now.
(3) Balance is player-specific, e.g., what is balanced for player X's play style may not be balanced for player Y's play style.
(4) Even after you overcome these hurdles, balance doesn't mean the game needs to change, e.g., you may just need to "figure it out".
When a pro talks about balance, you should always interpret it as "I am having trouble in X match-up with unit/strategy Y. Through my experimentation and knowledge, I don't see a reasonable way to deal with Y yet." That's all.
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
I frankly don't care if Nestea and DRG share the same sentiments, I don't think PvZ is Protoss favoured and the stats clearly back me up on that. ZvP has always been DRG's and Idra's worst MU anywho, so I would take what they say with a grain of salt.
And just because Stephano does well doesn't make the match-up fine, either.
I'm not taking sides on the debate. I think the match-up is polarizing because the results are largely dictated by the small moments of the game rather than your play over the course of the entire game. So you'll end up with zergs that feel slighted like Nestea/DRG/Idra and you'll end up with zergs that dominate like Stephano.
I don't mean to indicate that Stephano being a monster in ZvP means it isn't Protoss favoured, but I do think Idra should take a look at how he plays and figure out why Stephano is having so much more success in the match-up. I do agree that the entire course of a PvZ game often resolves around one or two moments, but I think that is because a lot of Protoss still rely on timing attacks without a good follow-up into a macro game. The MU has slowly been developing and allowing for longer and more evenly matched macro games and I expect the trend to continue.
The counter-arguments (not necessarily all related) to that are that (1) according to TLPD int'l, Stephano's playing against bad protoss, (2) Stephano's style is not proven --- i.e., if it were as easy as what Stephano's doing then DRG and Nestea wouldn't be complaining, (3) Stephano's style hasn't transmitted downstream yet, e.g., koreans aren't aware of what Stephano's doing, and (4) Stephano's style doesn't translate well to GSL-level protoss.
But besides all those points, I think you're right. The match-up is evolving and I'm not worried that things will balance themselves out, i.e., just because Idra/DRG/Nestea say that the MU is favoring protoss now doesn't mean in a few days or a month that'll change without intervention from Blizzard.
I'm not sure those counter-arguments hold up. Stephano played against a lot of good Protoss on the Korean ladder and beat them constantly (except MC, MC seems to have his number). I realize that is the ladder and not indicative of the highest level of Protoss play, but in comparison Idra consistently lost to NA Protoss players before his trip to Korea. Stephano's ZvP is a lot less stylistic than his ZvT, he always plays a standard double expand into roach ling into infestor broodlord and from what I've seen that is the most common way of playing the MU. I think the most stylistic part of how he plays it is his transition into broodlords, where he throws down a massive spine wall and plays completely defensively until he gets like 15-20 broodlords and 10+ infestors. Otherwise it is just a combination of his mechanics, multitasking, and decision making (particularly his ability to time aggression perfectly) that make him so good.
I don't remember the last time I won a game vP where I didn't do a stupid all-in. I feel like pre-broodlords, every unit I have just evaporates against every protoss unit. I'm not sure what I should be trying because nothing has worked. If there is a point in the game where I'm forced to fight, I'm dead. Remaxing doesn't help when 200/200 of anything dies without inflicting any casualties
I spent hours last week watching Stephano replays/vods and people just seem to have less stuff against him than they do against me and I have no idea why.
At a high-level, I view the evolution of zvp going in the direction of Z acting like T in TvZ. What we consider all-in is really standard mid-game aggression (be it multiprong attacks, mutas, or drops) to keep protoss honest. Stephano's genius is that he's striking the right balance between aggression and all-ining without resorting to mutas to do it.
Coincidentally, I think this hits on why mutas end up being so successful for zerg. It forces Z to act aggressive in the mid-game while also macroing up because it's physically difficult to "all-in" with muta.
I just want to build a 200 army of roaches and A-move. Is that so much to ask?
As long as you're 200/200 on speed roach at 2/1 on 3-moving-to-4-base at the 13 minute mark, then you're golden. ^_^
*note (from previous conversations with kambing) that this 13min mark is only attainable if there has been no harassment. my personal best against hard ai is 12:31. nothin' but roaches, queens, the occassional sling when i didnt get enough gas, and OLs. It's also a wonderful way to practice "macro". It will also demonstrate in a very clear manner how badly getting supply blocked effs you in a very uncomfortable place. (like the back of a volkswagon). You should also be able to spread creep on XNC to at least your gold in this time.
and, i would disagree that your on 3->4 bases. I usually find that a 3->5 is safe if you've droned properly.
I frankly don't care if Nestea and DRG share the same sentiments, I don't think PvZ is Protoss favoured and the stats clearly back me up on that. ZvP has always been DRG's and Idra's worst MU anywho, so I would take what they say with a grain of salt.
And just because Stephano does well doesn't make the match-up fine, either.
I'm not taking sides on the debate. I think the match-up is polarizing because the results are largely dictated by the small moments of the game rather than your play over the course of the entire game. So you'll end up with zergs that feel slighted like Nestea/DRG/Idra and you'll end up with zergs that dominate like Stephano.
I don't mean to indicate that Stephano being a monster in ZvP means it isn't Protoss favoured, but I do think Idra should take a look at how he plays and figure out why Stephano is having so much more success in the match-up. I do agree that the entire course of a PvZ game often resolves around one or two moments, but I think that is because a lot of Protoss still rely on timing attacks without a good follow-up into a macro game. The MU has slowly been developing and allowing for longer and more evenly matched macro games and I expect the trend to continue.
The counter-arguments (not necessarily all related) to that are that (1) according to TLPD int'l, Stephano's playing against bad protoss, (2) Stephano's style is not proven --- i.e., if it were as easy as what Stephano's doing then DRG and Nestea wouldn't be complaining, (3) Stephano's style hasn't transmitted downstream yet, e.g., koreans aren't aware of what Stephano's doing, and (4) Stephano's style doesn't translate well to GSL-level protoss.
But besides all those points, I think you're right. The match-up is evolving and I'm not worried that things will balance themselves out, i.e., just because Idra/DRG/Nestea say that the MU is favoring protoss now doesn't mean in a few days or a month that'll change without intervention from Blizzard.
I'm not sure those counter-arguments hold up. Stephano played against a lot of good Protoss on the Korean ladder and beat them constantly (except MC, MC seems to have his number). I realize that is the ladder and not indicative of the highest level of Protoss play, but in comparison Idra consistently lost to NA Protoss players before his trip to Korea. Stephano's ZvP is a lot less stylistic than his ZvT, he always plays a standard double expand into roach ling into infestor broodlord and from what I've seen that is the most common way of playing the MU. I think the most stylistic part of how he plays it is his transition into broodlords, where he throws down a massive spine wall and plays completely defensively until he gets like 15-20 broodlords and 10+ infestors. Otherwise it is just a combination of his mechanics, multitasking, and decision making (particularly his ability to time aggression perfectly) that make him so good.
Ladder is not only indicative of GSL-level play, but also doesn't necessarily translate into a tournament setting where your opponent can prep and plan against your style. I think some of Stephano's success is --- as other pros have mentioned --- due to the fact that he plays differently than the standard, passive zerg style. But that's all speculative either way.
I really do think Stephano's aggression is what other zergs need to pick up on. This is exactly the mid-game balance that I was talking about before that was prompted by Tanner's comment.
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
I don't remember the last time I won a game vP where I didn't do a stupid all-in. I feel like pre-broodlords, every unit I have just evaporates against every protoss unit. I'm not sure what I should be trying because nothing has worked. If there is a point in the game where I'm forced to fight, I'm dead. Remaxing doesn't help when 200/200 of anything dies without inflicting any casualties
I spent hours last week watching Stephano replays/vods and people just seem to have less stuff against him than they do against me and I have no idea why.
At a high-level, I view the evolution of zvp going in the direction of Z acting like T in TvZ. What we consider all-in is really standard mid-game aggression (be it multiprong attacks, mutas, or drops) to keep protoss honest. Stephano's genius is that he's striking the right balance between aggression and all-ining without resorting to mutas to do it.
Coincidentally, I think this hits on why mutas end up being so successful for zerg. It forces Z to act aggressive in the mid-game while also macroing up because it's physically difficult to "all-in" with muta.
I just want to build a 200 army of roaches and A-move. Is that so much to ask?
As long as you're 200/200 on speed roach at 2/1 on 3-moving-to-4-base at the 13 minute mark, then you're golden. ^_^
*note (from previous conversations with kambing) that this 13min mark is only attainable if there has been no harassment. my personal best against hard ai is 12:31. nothin' but roaches, queens, the occassional sling when i didnt get enough gas, and OLs. It's also a wonderful way to practice "macro". It will also demonstrate in a very clear manner how badly getting supply blocked effs you in a very uncomfortable place. (like the back of a volkswagon). You should also be able to spread creep on XNC to at least your gold in this time.
and, i would disagree that your on 3->4 bases. I usually find that a 3->5 is safe if you've droned properly.
To be fair, I was sort of pulling those numbers out of my ass.
But yeah, going pure roach is a good exercise in macro. In a real game, your expand pattern past the third will depend on how successful your push is.
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
0
TannerMS "I'm confidence cause I'm zerg!"Registered Userregular
What kinds of aggression are you seeing him have success with? It seems like if your opponent plays it safe you're just wasting your time
What kinds of aggression are you seeing him have success with? It seems like if your opponent plays it safe you're just wasting your time
Meeks can correct me if I'm wrong (since he has the little Stephano fangirl shrine tucked away in his closet), but, composition-wise, it's nothing more than just roach/ling + maybe infestor aggression but done so at the right time and at the right places. And he isn't putting himself behind in eco when he does it.
@TwitchTV, @Youtube: master-level zerg ladder/customs, commentary, and random miscellany.
Edit: Noob question for @Invictus re: league setup (original post in spoilers)
The tiered brackets mean that depending on player availability, team matches won't have a set number of 1v1 matches, but rather whoever is available to play for each team that week, right? So a team match could be determined by a best-of-11, or a best-of-3? But the team will still just register 1 team win for the week?
If you're interested in a PA 1v1-style team league, sign up here. Dover, please put this link in the OP (and possibly the following description of the league).
This team league will consist of four teams, playing each other in a round-robin format over three weeks, followed by a one week playoff, with the team with the best record and second-best record playing each other, and the other two teams playing for bronze.
Format will be individual matchups of Bo3s, with the competitors in each matchup being set ahead of time (proleague style, not winner's league or GSTL-style, for those of you that know what that means). Each matchup will be between players who are relatively close in skill: to be specific, all competitors will be ranked in three brackets. The highest bracket is GM through diamond, the next bracket is plat/gold, the last bracket is silver/bronze. Each competitor will always (with optional exceptions) face someone from their bracket. Bracket placements will be set at the beginning of the season for the entire season, so if a player is promoted from silver to gold during the season, they do not change brackets. Each team will have a similar number of players in each bracket to the other teams, though each team may have (for example) more GM through diamond players than silver/bronze players. The amount of matchups in each team versus team match will vary from week to week, based on who is available to play.
A more detailed explanation of the (relatively complex) setup follows, in spoiler.
At the beginning of each week, each team captain tells the person running the league how many players on that team can play that week, and which bracket those players are in. For each match between two teams, the league coordinator looks at the availability report for each team and tells each team how many Bo3s their match will involve, based on how many good matchups can be made from the available players.
Complication: Only an even number of good matchups can be made. Solution: Have an ace match, if necessary. The ace match consists of a player from each team in the highest bracket in which a matchup was played in that set.
Complication: A minimal number of good matchups are available, given the two availability reports. Solution: Matchups between people in different groups are optional, for the teams. If both teams decide that they'd like to have a match between two people who are in separate groups, they can. The league coordinator is responsible for putting out some plausible optional matchups.
Example follows, in spoiler.
Example: (example done entirely with variables, I know it's hard to read, just bear with me)
Team Alpha plays Team Beta.
Team Alpha has the following availability:
Player A, top group (GM)
Player B, top group (masters)
Player C, mid group, plat
Player D, mid group, gold
Player E, low group, bronze
Team Beta has the following availability.
Player 1, top group, GM
Player 2, mid group, gold
Player 3, low group, silver
Player 4, low group, bronze
Player 5, low group, bronze
League coordinator says, here are your matches for the week.
A v 1
C vs 2
E vs 4
optional: D vs 3
They play out the week, and as a matter of fact, A beats 1, C beats 2, 4 beats E, and after both teams agree to play the optional match, 3 takes the upset victory over that snotty goldy D. So they're tied at 2-2. They play an ace match. Since a top bracket matchup was played (A vs 1), the ace match is a matchup of two top bracket players. Unfortunately, A can't make it to the ace match, so B plays for him instead (still a top group player), but B falls to 1 in the ace match. Beta wins, 3-2.
The reason I structure things like this is to make the league resilient both to variance in week-to-week participation and to people who stop showing up entirely. I think, given the number of people involved, these things will just happen and we ought to play for them. Moreover, this is a pretty short-term plan, with just four weeks of competition. If we think changes should be made to the structure, they can be made after the first season.
I have a couple of captains, but I am still looking for two more! PM me if you're interested!
Yes. Regardless of whether it's a Bo3 or a Bo11, the team gets one win or loss a week. As a result, the tiebreakers will have to be not in terms of matchups won, but instead in terms of matchup percentage won.
Invictus on
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
DRG says whether it's PvZ or PvT, the deadliness of immortals depend entirely on the 'skill' of forcefields. If the toss fails with FFs, P loses, if not, P wins.
It can go either way in the MU, but games are typically determined at very precise moments that can be frustrating to lose as a result on either side.
I will gladly shit on DRG AND Nestea for having that sentiment, because it's demonstrably false.
False for who? I take it that they are accurately representing the sentiments of the top GSL-level pro zergs out there. And from listening to streams, they aren't the only ones grumbling about the difficulty of the MU. It just happens that they did so on Twitter and Greg did it in an interview.
But regardless, this is why talking about balance in general terms is a bad idea.
(1) Balance is framed within the context of who you play against, e.g., what is balanced for diamond isn't necessarily balanced for the GSL and vice versa.
(2) Balance is framed within the context of when you play, e.g., what was fine a few months ago may not be balanced now.
(3) Balance is player-specific, e.g., what is balanced for player X's play style may not be balanced for player Y's play style.
(4) Even after you overcome these hurdles, balance doesn't mean the game needs to change, e.g., you may just need to "figure it out".
When a pro talks about balance, you should always interpret it as "I am having trouble in X match-up with unit/strategy Y. Through my experimentation and knowledge, I don't see a reasonable way to deal with Y yet." That's all.
So I just realized that the Day 9 Daily is basically a daytime cooking show. Some fun strategies (recipes) to try at home, or to simply pass the time and marvel at. Maybe you pick up a couple words of wisdom along the way. A charismatic host who intersperses the content with anecdotes about their life, and other distractions along the way.
Posts
He plays really good ZvT and it's funny when he gets angry.
And just because Stephano does well doesn't make the match-up fine, either.
I'm not taking sides on the debate. I think the match-up is polarizing because the results are largely dictated by the small moments of the game rather than your play over the course of the entire game. So you'll end up with zergs that feel slighted like Nestea/DRG/Idra and you'll end up with zergs that dominate like Stephano.
I would dare say they're mostly the teenage, immature demo who get impressed by bm antics.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
at a time where no european could watch T.T
amusing... i'm not sure that word means what you think it does....
he's an asshat. he's a child in a man's body who can't look introspectively. every time he loses, it's because the other players are terrible and did stupid things that no one would do. he's inflexible in his playstyle, and when people plan for it, he doesn't change.
where's that video of greg's greatest hits?
Joe's Stream.
exactly
it's pretty funny
(Here in Belgium, I don't even get ads on most videos. I can't buy Dr. Pepper or Hot Pockets, so I'm not exactly a prime audience member)
I don't mean to indicate that Stephano being a monster in ZvP means it isn't Protoss favoured, but I do think Idra should take a look at how he plays and figure out why Stephano is having so much more success in the match-up. I do agree that the entire course of a PvZ game often resolves around one or two moments, but I think that is because a lot of Protoss still rely on timing attacks without a good follow-up into a macro game. The MU has slowly been developing and allowing for longer and more evenly matched macro games and I expect the trend to continue.
Also, I think Idra could stand to read this:
Sirlin Excerpt
He seems stuck on one vision of how to play the game. In an environment where scouting and information is the biggest part of the game, knowing your opponent will go ling-muta every game is a huge advantage.
Gotta be flexible, yo.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
The counter-arguments (not necessarily all related) to that are that (1) according to TLPD int'l, Stephano's playing against bad protoss, (2) Stephano's style is not proven --- i.e., if it were as easy as what Stephano's doing then DRG and Nestea wouldn't be complaining, (3) Stephano's style hasn't transmitted downstream yet, e.g., koreans aren't aware of what Stephano's doing, and (4) Stephano's style doesn't translate well to GSL-level protoss.
But besides all those points, I think you're right. The match-up is evolving and I'm not worried that things will balance themselves out, i.e., just because Idra/DRG/Nestea say that the MU is favoring protoss now doesn't mean in a few days or a month that'll change without intervention from Blizzard.
Also protoss.
Just need to be able to practice with no pressure.
yell at me when i'm on in the PA channel for some zerg practice... usually asking in channel will get you some practice partners anyway....
Joe's Stream.
I am much worse at* cheese than I am at standard play. We should coach each other
They are a summary of pro games. Have you tried making mutalisks?
Not really. My harassment skills are very lacking. And I never seem to be able to get out a decent number of them before the protoss comes knocking at my door.
I spent hours last week watching Stephano replays/vods and people just seem to have less stuff against him than they do against me and I have no idea why.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
At a high-level, I view the evolution of zvp going in the direction of Z acting like T in TvZ. What we consider all-in is really standard mid-game aggression (be it multiprong attacks, mutas, or drops) to keep protoss honest. Stephano's genius is that he's striking the right balance between aggression and all-ining without resorting to mutas to do it.
Coincidentally, I think this hits on why mutas end up being so successful for zerg. It forces Z to act aggressive in the mid-game while also macroing up because it's physically difficult to "all-in" with muta.
I just want to build a 200 army of roaches and A-move. Is that so much to ask?
As long as you're 200/200 on speed roach at 2/1 on 3-moving-to-4-base at the 13 minute mark, then you're golden. ^_^
I will gladly shit on DRG AND Nestea for having that sentiment, because it's demonstrably false.
False for who? I take it that they are accurately representing the sentiments of the top GSL-level pro zergs out there. And from listening to streams, they aren't the only ones grumbling about the difficulty of the MU. It just happens that they did so on Twitter and Greg did it in an interview.
But regardless, this is why talking about balance in general terms is a bad idea.
(1) Balance is framed within the context of who you play against, e.g., what is balanced for diamond isn't necessarily balanced for the GSL and vice versa.
(2) Balance is framed within the context of when you play, e.g., what was fine a few months ago may not be balanced now.
(3) Balance is player-specific, e.g., what is balanced for player X's play style may not be balanced for player Y's play style.
(4) Even after you overcome these hurdles, balance doesn't mean the game needs to change, e.g., you may just need to "figure it out".
When a pro talks about balance, you should always interpret it as "I am having trouble in X match-up with unit/strategy Y. Through my experimentation and knowledge, I don't see a reasonable way to deal with Y yet." That's all.
I'm not sure those counter-arguments hold up. Stephano played against a lot of good Protoss on the Korean ladder and beat them constantly (except MC, MC seems to have his number). I realize that is the ladder and not indicative of the highest level of Protoss play, but in comparison Idra consistently lost to NA Protoss players before his trip to Korea. Stephano's ZvP is a lot less stylistic than his ZvT, he always plays a standard double expand into roach ling into infestor broodlord and from what I've seen that is the most common way of playing the MU. I think the most stylistic part of how he plays it is his transition into broodlords, where he throws down a massive spine wall and plays completely defensively until he gets like 15-20 broodlords and 10+ infestors. Otherwise it is just a combination of his mechanics, multitasking, and decision making (particularly his ability to time aggression perfectly) that make him so good.
*note (from previous conversations with kambing) that this 13min mark is only attainable if there has been no harassment. my personal best against hard ai is 12:31. nothin' but roaches, queens, the occassional sling when i didnt get enough gas, and OLs. It's also a wonderful way to practice "macro". It will also demonstrate in a very clear manner how badly getting supply blocked effs you in a very uncomfortable place. (like the back of a volkswagon). You should also be able to spread creep on XNC to at least your gold in this time.
and, i would disagree that your on 3->4 bases. I usually find that a 3->5 is safe if you've droned properly.
Joe's Stream.
Ladder is not only indicative of GSL-level play, but also doesn't necessarily translate into a tournament setting where your opponent can prep and plan against your style. I think some of Stephano's success is --- as other pros have mentioned --- due to the fact that he plays differently than the standard, passive zerg style. But that's all speculative either way.
I really do think Stephano's aggression is what other zergs need to pick up on. This is exactly the mid-game balance that I was talking about before that was prompted by Tanner's comment.
To be fair, I was sort of pulling those numbers out of my ass.
But yeah, going pure roach is a good exercise in macro. In a real game, your expand pattern past the third will depend on how successful your push is.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
Meeks can correct me if I'm wrong (since he has the little Stephano fangirl shrine tucked away in his closet), but, composition-wise, it's nothing more than just roach/ling + maybe infestor aggression but done so at the right time and at the right places. And he isn't putting himself behind in eco when he does it.
Yes. Regardless of whether it's a Bo3 or a Bo11, the team gets one win or loss a week. As a result, the tiebreakers will have to be not in terms of matchups won, but instead in terms of matchup percentage won.
i am non-committal about this
if only capcom would actually work with mlg T.T
Oh sure, be all reasonable, ruin my fun :P
But, good points.
that would probably make a lot more sense