SC2 E-Sports Thread

[GRT]

Still hoping to see a foreigner in the finals and him getting asked if they could interview his mom.

[Falaras]

I don't think idrA has a mom, he was spawned from an evil creature that BM's everyone.

[Maguspk]

I want to see a foreigner in the finals for the same reason. I wonder if they'd fly to a foreign country just to get that interview. It'd be really interesting because they'd have to like rearrange lots of things, like the interviews on stage. Imagine John the translator up there translating for IdrA, Ret, Jinro or haypro, or some other translator for Sen. That's be freaking hilarious. We have a decent shot this time with 5 skilled foreigners, but I really think IdrA and Ret have the best chance. Haypro doesn't have a chance in hell, sen and jinro have about an equal chance imo.

[Falaras]

Meh GSL will always be bracket dependent and it really doesn't matter how good someone is. I can guarantee you IdrA is a better player than Foxer but didn't make it far at all. Plus Jinro probably is the best of the bunch, although idrA could be better. I'll agree with the Haypro thing though.

[Thunder]

Guarantee idra is a better player than foxer? I don't know.. that's kind of a bold thing to say after only watching casts of them. Perhaps if we had replays of foxer to examine ourselves. He micros like no other terran while macroing at the same time. That said, I don't think people give enough credit to good micro. As terran it's extremely powerful. Most times as zerg(w/o banes)/toss(w/o blink stalkers) you can a-move into a battle and go back to base and macro with minimal impact on the battle. As terran you lose a lot of extra units because you didn't micro your MM. It isn't fair when people call foxer "cheesy" because he plays aggressively

But between Jinro and Idra? Idra's so better <.< I think Jinro pulled a fair bit of luck to win MLG texas and that's the only reason people are putting faith into him. Remember, BO3s and BO5s aren't good measures of skills when the better player only needs a 51% win rate over the other.

[Falaras]

Guarantee idra is a better player than foxer? I don't know.. that's kind of a bold thing to say after only watching casts of them. Perhaps if we had replays of foxer to examine ourselves. He micros like no other terran while macroing at the same time. That said, I don't think people give enough credit to good micro. As terran it's extremely powerful. Most times as zerg(w/o banes)/toss(w/o blink stalkers) you can a-move into a battle and go back to base and macro with minimal impact on the battle. As terran you lose a lot of extra units because you didn't micro your MM. It isn't fair when people call foxer "cheesy" because he plays aggressively

But between Jinro and Idra? Idra's so better <.< I think Jinro pulled a fair bit of luck to win MLG texas and that's the only reason people are putting faith into him. Remember, BO3s and BO5s aren't good measures of skills when the better player only needs a 51% win rate over the other.

I absolutely loved Foxer when he pulled that constant marine pressure trick out in the GSL, then he did it every single game. He came up with a decent strategy but using only one strategy is no way to play this game competitively. There is no doubt Boxer has good micro (although it may be a bit exagerated because it looks so flashy to micro marines against blings), but like if you watch State of the Game or any number of interviews the pro gamers think Foxer is a joke specifically because all he does is one build. As far as calling it cheesy its not cheese so I don't know why anyone would call it then.

As far as Jinro and Idra go, idra has amazing mechanics but plays standard 100% of the time and really fails to react to people. Jinro on the other hand has revolutionized TvP in a way no one could have imagined. Both are top notch players but I wouldn't say idra is the better player. There is no way to measure definite skill but for sure the more games played the more it will show who is better (at least that day or at that match up), BO3-5-9-whatever are the best ways of doing so. As far as 51% win rate, I don't understand what you are saying, if the player went 2-1 he has a 66% win rate for that match up. Idra is way over hyped, he is a good player but he isn't some god among white people, he's just in the top tier of players with a bunch of other players (including people like Huk who didn't even qualify!)

[Thunder]

Er, winning a BO2 2-1 does mean you have a 66% win rate over the other person, but it doesn't definitely prove that they're better. What I meant was, given a coin that has 51% chance of landing heads, 49% tails, and you don't know which side favors the other, how many times would you have to flip it in order to know for sure? Even 100 flips, given the small difference in %, could mean that you get more tails than heads.

All I'm saying is that winning a BO3 2-1 and then saying you have(technicalities aside) a 66% win rate in that match-up is a mathematical fallacy. I think, when determining a player's skill, we would be better served by analyzing game-play instead of trying to reach conclusions with just the outcomes of matches because even if starcraft2 was around for 5 years already and players would have logged thousands of matches(which would then give a pretty solid win%) their skill changes over time and so someone who's had a 40% win rate over 4 years and then suddenly bumps it up to 60% because he just had a 100% win rate in the 5th year does not make him some 60% win-rate pro, he's an absolute boss.

As for Foxer, I agree that the micro is very flashy, but it's as good as micro can get sans a super computer making marauders conc. shell every unit separately. He also macros pretty well while doing it. Sometimes I'll watch Brat_OK's stream and he'll leave battles to go macro instead which I really disagree with because terran micro means saving a handful of units or dealing that much more damage if your army's losing. Which outweighs the couple extra MMM units you'd miss had you been microing the battle instead of macroing. I mean, I'm sure NaDa does it with his 400 apm but like.. I noticed that Slayersboxer doesn't micro all of hits units all of the time. There was a game recently where he did a hellion drop.. then was attacked somewhere else or something(don't quite remember, but I'm not lying!) and he just left his hellions in the mineral line roasting drones while the queen killed them.

I don't know, maybe I'm giving Foxer too much credit because you're right when you say he's somewhat of a one-trick pony. But I really have never been impressed with micro/macro like his.

And how did Jinro revolutionize TvP?

[stewie]

I absolutely loved Foxer when he pulled that constant marine pressure trick out in the GSL, then he did it every single game. He came up with a decent strategy but using only one strategy is no way to play this game competitively. There is no doubt Boxer has good micro (although it may be a bit exagerated because it looks so flashy to micro marines against blings), but like if you watch State of the Game or any number of interviews the pro gamers think Foxer is a joke specifically because all he does is one build. As far as calling it cheesy its not cheese so I don't know why anyone would call it then.

As far as Jinro and Idra go, idra has amazing mechanics but plays standard 100% of the time and really fails to react to people. Jinro on the other hand has revolutionized TvP in a way no one could have imagined. Both are top notch players but I wouldn't say idra is the better player. There is no way to measure definite skill but for sure the more games played the more it will show who is better (at least that day or at that match up), BO3-5-9-whatever are the best ways of doing so. As far as 51% win rate, I don't understand what you are saying, if the player went 2-1 he has a 66% win rate for that match up. Idra is way over hyped, he is a good player but he isn't some god among white people, he's just in the top tier of players with a bunch of other players (including people like Huk who didn't even qualify!)

If you watched G-star he's stopped going marine only, he won runner-up using more normal strategies.

[Falaras]

Er, winning a BO2 2-1 does mean you have a 66% win rate over the other person, but it doesn't definitely prove that they're better. What I meant was, given a coin that has 51% chance of landing heads, 49% tails, and you don't know which side favors the other, how many times would you have to flip it in order to know for sure? Even 100 flips, given the small difference in %, could mean that you get more tails than heads.

All I'm saying is that winning a BO3 2-1 and then saying you have(technicalities aside) a 66% win rate in that match-up is a mathematical fallacy. I think, when determining a player's skill, we would be better served by analyzing game-play instead of trying to reach conclusions with just the outcomes of matches because even if starcraft2 was around for 5 years already and players would have logged thousands of matches(which would then give a pretty solid win%) their skill changes over time and so someone who's had a 40% win rate over 4 years and then suddenly bumps it up to 60% because he just had a 100% win rate in the 5th year does not make him some 60% win-rate pro, he's an absolute boss.

As for Foxer, I agree that the micro is very flashy, but it's as good as micro can get sans a super computer making marauders conc. shell every unit separately. He also macros pretty well while doing it. Sometimes I'll watch Brat_OK's stream and he'll leave battles to go macro instead which I really disagree with because terran micro means saving a handful of units or dealing that much more damage if your army's losing. Which outweighs the couple extra MMM units you'd miss had you been microing the battle instead of macroing. I mean, I'm sure NaDa does it with his 400 apm but like.. I noticed that Slayersboxer doesn't micro all of hits units all of the time. There was a game recently where he did a hellion drop.. then was attacked somewhere else or something(don't quite remember, but I'm not lying!) and he just left his hellions in the mineral line roasting drones while the queen killed them.

I don't know, maybe I'm giving Foxer too much credit because you're right when you say he's somewhat of a one-trick pony. But I really have never been impressed with micro/macro like his.

And how did Jinro revolutionize TvP?

Honestly you can't ever tell who the better player is, there is no way to without a doubt pin point that. The best system we have now is multiple games with a winners and losers bracket, even that fails at doing so. You have to remember foxer is macroing only one unit from one building, comparing that to any other player would be kind of silly as you need to leave the battles the farther the game progresses (until you max the map at least). Microing is really quite unimportant to be honest EXCEPT when you are fighting things like Banelings (even then spreading can be wrong to do) and I think you give it to much credit. The balance would probably be 90% macro 10% micro of importance, I mean even 1-a'ing isn't as detrimental as forgetting to make a round of units.

As far as how Jinro revolutionized TvP, the Thor Banshee play we saw in MLG is what I am referring to (although Painuser also used it).

If you watched G-star he's stopped going marine only, he won runner-up using more normal strategies.

That's good, he could easily be a top player if he used multiple strategies and it sounds like he has so all power to him.

[Thunder]

Hm, I have to disagree with your 90% macro 10% micro for a terran. Zealots/other crap vs MMM is SO different when the MMM doesn't kite the zealots around. Zealots can be pretty much nullified in a battle if conc marauders and then it's MMM vs stalkers/collosus and collosus can't solo MMM and support stalkers are really weak. Plus, microing out of storms is SO important, even more than avoiding banelings. As terran you should probably keep your eye on possible forcefields that you could null with micro.

And MMM micro vs zergs is really powerful too since nothing but hydra have enough range to prevent MMM from kiting. MMM stutter stepping backwards REALLY cuts into the DPS a roach/ling army can do. It's why infestors are just so powerful. So I'd argue that Terrans should always focus on micro and miss out on like 4 marines, 2 marauders, 2 medivacs, whatever else, because the micro means saving dozens of units.

As for "macroing only 1 unit out of 1 building"... yeah, lol. At most I could say that he macrod out of a single factory and starport + his marines.

Also, catching up on SotG podcasts and day9 explained "determining better players" with the coin thing I used. Which makes me look like some parroting fanboy but math majors think alike!

[Falaras]

Hm, I have to disagree with your 90% macro 10% micro for a terran. Zealots/other crap vs MMM is SO different when the MMM doesn't kite the zealots around. Zealots can be pretty much nullified in a battle if conc marauders and then it's MMM vs stalkers/collosus and collosus can't solo MMM and support stalkers are really weak. Plus, microing out of storms is SO important, even more than avoiding banelings. As terran you should probably keep your eye on possible forcefields that you could null with micro.

And MMM micro vs zergs is really powerful too since nothing but hydra have enough range to prevent MMM from kiting. MMM stutter stepping backwards REALLY cuts into the DPS a roach/ling army can do. It's why infestors are just so powerful. So I'd argue that Terrans should always focus on micro and miss out on like 4 marines, 2 marauders, 2 medivacs, whatever else, because the micro means saving dozens of units.

As for "macroing only 1 unit out of 1 building"... yeah, lol. At most I could say that he macrod out of a single factory and starport + his marines.

Also, catching up on SotG podcasts and day9 explained "determining better players" with the coin thing I used. Which makes me look like some parroting fanboy but math majors think alike!

You are really over exaggerating what micro can accomplish, you can't conc shell every zealot and you do less damage microing your MMM ball around so really it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Storms, Banelings, Tanks, any splash really will always be the big thing to micro around but even then its not going to matter as much as macroing because you lose damage by microing out of things like that. There are even other things to think about like if you spread your marines that means zerglings can surround and demolish them anyways, not that its better to just eat the Baneling blast but it makes microing less and less effective. You seem to ignore that if you kite out of their range it also means you are doing no damage while moving, its null unless they move slower than you (with stim this is true and why MMM is important to micro) Kiting with MMM is effective but I can't remember the last time I actually used MMM as a unit composition either, and kiting Thors around isn't effective.

[Thunder]

Kiting doesn't have to be done by units that are faster than what they're kiting. If your units move in one direction their concave doesn't get destroyed. If the enemies crap chases you their units funnel in and while MMM is stopped and shooting the(let's just say roaches) are bumping into each other to get into position and a lot never get the chance to fire.

Only way does kiting really become detrimental is when the enemy has range over your crap.

And really.. microing MMM against zealots is so painful to watch unless the toss has waves and waves of them. Yes, because nobody can hit hold position every .5(?) second for marines to fire without stopping and inevitably loses a lot of damage from marauders too. But zealots do a TON of damage, they're like toss's best DPS per cost and conc shells don't have to hit all of the zealots, just the ones in front which will slow down the ones in behind of them. So while zealot DPS gets demolished your MMM DPS takes a hit but so do stalkers since they have to chase units that are faster and collosus(pretty much the second half of toss DPS) gets hit really hard since they're so slow and clumsy.
And zerg.. everything is melee/roaches "pretty much" so kiting with stimmed MM is so good.

Really, terran micro is more important than toss or zerg micro since they have all range units and are so fast under stim, only way to boost it is if their damage was increased and their fire rate proportionately lowered. At least in my opinion, and I think I make a pretty strong case for it.

[Falaras]

Kiting doesn't have to be done by units that are faster than what they're kiting. If your units move in one direction their concave doesn't get destroyed. If the enemies crap chases you their units funnel in and while MMM is stopped and shooting the(let's just say roaches) are bumping into each other to get into position and a lot never get the chance to fire.

Only way does kiting really become detrimental is when the enemy has range over your crap.

And really.. microing MMM against zealots is so painful to watch unless the toss has waves and waves of them. Yes, because nobody can hit hold position every .5(?) second for marines to fire without stopping and inevitably loses a lot of damage from marauders too. But zealots do a TON of damage, they're like toss's best DPS per cost and conc shells don't have to hit all of the zealots, just the ones in front which will slow down the ones in behind of them. So while zealot DPS gets demolished your MMM DPS takes a hit but so do stalkers since they have to chase units that are faster and collosus(pretty much the second half of toss DPS) gets hit really hard since they're so slow and clumsy.
And zerg.. everything is melee/roaches "pretty much" so kiting with stimmed MM is so good.

Really, terran micro is more important than toss or zerg micro since they have all range units and are so fast under stim, only way to boost it is if their damage was increased and their fire rate proportionately lowered. At least in my opinion, and I think I make a pretty strong case for it.

I didn't say kiting wasn't worthwhile, it obviously is, but kiting does make you do less damage and thats a big reason that microing isn't as important as macroing. As far as terran micro being more important than toss or zerg, disagree. MMM isn't a good unit composition (it's more of something you are forced to do if you are behind) for the most part. Kiting outside of MMM is less than useful considering you can't kite anything with tanks or thors. I would say zerg takes the most micro with spreading units, surrounds, making sure banelings connect to the right target, things of that nature.

[Thunder]

First response was kind of long so I'll spoiler it instead.

I don't think stutter step micro on your MM would ever hurt you more than it would hurt your opponent. Unless it's TvT. And taking a second to macro is definitely preferred. I just said that if I, hypothetically, have to choose between ANY micro on my units or ANY macro at my base for the duration of the battle - I would choose micro.

Spoiler: show

Well, yeah, thors can't be microd because they're just really really slow and their attack animation SUCKS. But everything else you put into your MMM, because I agree that pure MMM isn't going to always work, works well with micro'd MMM. Like, tanks can just stay sieged and don't care about any micro anywhere because of their 13 range. Vikings don't care much either since they too have 9 range. Hellions micro really well with MM.. uh, banshees if you incorporate them micro just fine too since air units have no collision.. what else would you have in your army?

As for zerg.. Zerglings are more or less a-move or if you're setting up for a nice surround you just split the zerg ball up into 2 or 3 groups like you would with any other race that wants a concave. And as for baneling micro.. it really isn't much more than right clicking the closest marines where as terran micro would require constant hold position/moving. Roaches/hydras/broodlords/ultras are pretty much a-move too besides the setting up of concaves which every race has to do. And obviously mutas need enough micro to be able to run away from stuff.

Really, since every terran composition has marines and marauders they can always stutter step them for better results than a-moving and going back to your base to macro. Idealy you want both but I think everyone can agree that it's difficult. And the only thing that would compare, imo, is blink stalkers.

Basically what I'm saying is that because marines and marauders are always in the terran unit composition, are at the front lines for the most part, and are hands-down the best units for stutter step micro that micro will always help your units more than it could hurt. Unless you're going to spend a second or two macroing instead of microing, which is definitely preferred.

Sometimes I get on these long explanations of what exactly I'm thinking about; hope I'm not shitting up the thread because I certainly like these discussions.

[Iku]

The first round 64 just happened for GSL Season 3. It was epic.

If you missed it, watch every single VoDs. Great matches, great interviews. Great time!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Falaras]

You can't really micro Thors/Tanks, you don't need to micro Banshees unless they are getting stormed (since the only good composition in an army with Banshees is around observers being killed), microing MMM around your Tanks is probably a bad idea because they are there to deal with air AND protect the tanks, Hellions are probably the most important unit in the game to micro but aren't too effective in a real army in my opinion.

Zergs definitly can't attack move zerglings though, you need to run them past the units then turn attack for the surround or they lose a ton of their viability. Roaches have pretty shitty range so microing them around is important (and if you do burrow micro which is awesome). Microing mutas is important since they are so weak, I'll concede that banelings aren't hard to micro though.

[Thunder]

Well, moving your zerglings past the enemy and then a-moving isn't as micro intensive as stutter stepping.

As for thors/tanks, I agreed that neither even can micro. But because your tanks have 13 range and you should have them sieged before an engagement your micro-able units(mm basically) will be in front and CAN micro until they're on top of the tanks. If you're not set up properly and your MMM is on top of your tanks then yeah.. you can't micro just like you couldn't if your units were all at blistering sand's xel naga tower.

And since you mentioned banshees. If you microd your MM but NOT your banshees, then it would really defeat the purpose of your MM micro since it's done to keep a portion of your opponents units from attacking and if your banshees would just be idle then their units would just fire on that(if there are stalkers/hydras present, otherwise this point is moot).

[Falaras]

Well, moving your zerglings past the enemy and then a-moving isn't as micro intensive as stutter stepping.

As for thors/tanks, I agreed that neither even can micro. But because your tanks have 13 range and you should have them sieged before an engagement your micro-able units(mm basically) will be in front and CAN micro until they're on top of the tanks. If you're not set up properly and your MMM is on top of your tanks then yeah.. you can't micro just like you couldn't if your units were all at blistering sand's xel naga tower.

And since you mentioned banshees. If you microd your MM but NOT your banshees, then it would really defeat the purpose of your MM micro since it's done to keep a portion of your opponents units from attacking and if your banshees would just be idle then their units would just fire on that(if there are stalkers/hydras present, otherwise this point is moot).

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want my MMM to far ahead of my tanks because the tanks are there to take care of the banelings before they reach the MMM (and if you have stim and run early your wasting health and if you don't stim the tanks can splash you). Banshees don't need micro'd because they won't be hit, that's the point of using Banshees in TvP armies. You still might need to move them out of storm but thats about it.

[Thunder]

Well, this conversation obviously isn't going any farther lol

Did anyone watch Guineapig's PvZ?

Spoiler: show

Guy won using a build that his team "TSL helped make". It was quite sick, pretty much did forge fast expand when scouting the zerg was going to expand too and then techs into void ray/phoenix with colossus to follow.

It looks like what sSKS did against NaDa except against zerg Guineapig wasn't as vulnerable as sSKS was against NaDa.

[altwight]

Well, this conversation obviously isn't going any farther lol

Did anyone watch Guineapig's PvZ?

Spoiler: show

Guy won using a build that his team "TSL helped make". It was quite sick, pretty much did forge fast expand when scouting the zerg was going to expand too and then techs into void ray/phoenix with colossus to follow.

It looks like what sSKS did against NaDa except against zerg Guineapig wasn't as vulnerable as sSKS was against NaDa.

Spoiler: show

soon as I saw that video i logged on bnet and made a custom game and booted everyone until I got a zerg diamond opponent. he went fast hatch on metalopolis and i did the same build order (give it take im not as pro or timed) but it stomped him soooooooo hard