Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: MM 2090: 1v1, Rank Neutron Star
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.7.5.1
Engine version: 104.0.1-1239-g12caea1
Started: 2 months ago
Duration: 13 minutes
Players: 2
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 45.6%

CArankEtSuRii
Team 2
Chance of victory: 54.4%

USrankAdminJasper
Spectators
USrankCrazyEddie
RUrankktdm

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort


2 months ago
Casted on YouTube

This is why I always hype constructor kills.
+1 / -0

2 months ago
CArankAdminShadowfury333 would you say defensive play would be making more constructors and having them constructing.
+0 / -0
2 months ago
I would say defensive play is more focused around intercepting enemy armies, generally by 'winning' the intel game. Build many radars and have scouts in enemy territory trying to spot troop movements, so you can respond in kind.

Building many constructors isn't defensive itself, I would first think it's a greedy economy very early in the game. You can turn your constructors into defenses by building llts near mexes. Also, something I don't do enough is build stardusts in choke points, there are many chokes in Trojan hills and a map like eye of horus had good choke points to build them too. Early on when you have 13m/s or something, you can think of turning your factory off for like 20 seconds to build stuff between your commander and some constructors, I would definately think that that's a very defensive move because you need your factory to be building units as early as possible to attack as quickly as possible. So having many constructors can have a secondary use of being defensive, but it does come to how you use them.
+0 / -0
USrankSteel_Blue is on the money, and for the record building a bunch of constructors to build everywhere is a third style of play—expansion—which counters defensive play by swallowing the map for free because no one is raiding/rushing, but is shut down by aggressive play because of those raids and rushes slowing everything down, if not outright winning by attacking right before the expansions pay off.
+0 / -0

2 months ago
I want to get really good at the expansion strategy.
+0 / -0
quote:
I want to get really good at the expansion strategy.

This only works if you know your opponent will not go into the aggression strategy.

Which they should, because it captures the initiative and can seamlessly transition to either two of the other strategies *after containing you in a stranglehold*.

Ex: "interception defense" vs "aggression": aggressor can always stop trying to actually kill your stuff, and instead settle for making you unable to expand - switching intent to kill with intent to contain - by running around and threatening to kill things if you stop intercepting. Meanwhile as you are intercepting, they can safely expand themselves (transitioning into contain-backed "expansion" strategy, essentially).

"expansion" vs "aggression" can imo only survive when raiders that the aggressor employs are easy to stop by constructors rapid-plopping emergency turrets, or when you're also running an "interception" subroutine with higher efficiency than the enemy runs his containment (e.g. your raiders are better than his, you are way better at micro, your intel advantage is really big, etc), or if he fails to scout your expansions before they lay eggs - something that's hard to pull off in the age of Sparrow.
+0 / -0

2 months ago
EErankAdminAnarchid what should I be doing?
+0 / -0


2 months ago
Default to fast aggressive reconnaissance by combat, then switch to a balance of kill, contain, intercept, or naked-expand according to aggro-provided intel.
+0 / -0

2 months ago
Are we talking about strategy or tactics now?
+0 / -0


2 months ago
Strategy? Maybe even meta-strategy.

I'm advocating picking an initial strategy that is least likely to fail against other strategies and can easily flex to exploit what the enemy is doing.
+0 / -0
2 months ago
I guess what's being said is that having a grand stratagy to win the 1v1 game better take no more than 1 minute, because the enemy can have combat units over at your end in that amount of time. So stratagy will quickly be thrown the wayside in favor of tactics. Admittedly, I myself would use 'tactics' and 'stratagy' interchangeably, I don't think they're much different words.
+0 / -0


2 months ago
Etsuri's attack began at 0:36 when he started building the first glaive. His attack was ready at 1:07 when the fifth glaive came out. They started moving at 1:08 and arrived 34 seconds later at 1:42. In eleven seconds they killed one bandit, one convict, and three mexes; they took no losses and retained control over the territory, thereby preventing recapture of the expansion without a large investment.

Jasper had essentially lost the game by 1:53.

What could Jasper have done to prevent this loss? Did Jasper make a mistake, or was this strictly a matter of blind RPS?
+0 / -0
2 months ago
I would be inclined to say pre game rps, but I don't think the game is lost so early. Jasper's movements would have worked well if etsuri had fanned his glaive out to both sides, sending 2 East and 2 West. Granted, positioning retreat micro and hiding under the shield would be super important with only 1 bandit. Jasper could have had 2 bandies, as well as build an llt before the mexes. Instead of going for an owtlaw, he could have just gone for a second expansion party of 2 bandits and a constructor.

Also, I assume etsurii attacked that area assuming to hit a factory and minor resistance. In some cases, a quick expand start you may greedily move your com away and leave the factory too lightly defended, and 5 glaives really do win the game.
+0 / -0