Bc he just failed and all him and his opponent had all the time in the world to either counter all-in (which would have won him the game) or play extremely greedy, so no all in should = upgrades
I always thought that the 1-point difference was because of rounding the numbers in the back end. Like technically in one game you got 7.25 points (rounded to 7) and they lost 7.75 points (rounded to 8), then in the other game it's reversed. I imagine depending on what the MMR for each player before the calculation is done will change the math of this, so it might not always perfectly flip in a loss then win (or vice versa) scenario.
@@mothrahlurker788 Partially (or at least only potentially) correct. The second game would have been a lower value for Harstem's gain, as Harstem was higher MMR and Mixu was lower (compared to the first). So the true value of Harstem's gain should have been lower on the second game - but in that game, it rounded up. It's possible there's more to it when considering the rounded difference AS WELL as the rounded actual value, but it's a strange one.
Yes - but the rounding is not consistent. In this case, the true value of Harstem's gain would have been lower on the second game, but the points were rounded up.
The push at 13:30ish was unnecessary, keeping half at home and denying his gold base mining would have put you ahead and hopefully decreased his long count
Gosh, I missed playing in low quality graphic. There just something about the simplicity, make it easier to input things into my brain, forgot to reduce it after reinstalling. Maybe that why im losing *Inhales Copium* That Second game was true pain
I have this theory, it has nothing to do with this particular match up. OK so in theory, when given one of the maps that allows you more initial income, its more lucrative to do nothing save 400 minerals and just take your natural. This constitutes a delay of about 10 seconds to your first units, but if you wall directly after its hard for protos/zerg from harassing you. Reapers are still a concern, but the value comes in the theoretical benefit of two at a time worker production. It also gives you a chance to scout your enemy, as doing so will distract them from starting their harassment. I would like to know if any top level players can tell me if this is viable at the highest level of gameplay?
so to be more specific the build order/plan in question is as follows: 1.send scout, 2. nexus before probe while scouting proxy locations, 3.after starting nexus start first probe, (don't forget to be a pest with your scout), 4. after starting first probe make a supply structure, and play like normal as if you were just starting. The theory is that you sacrifice a little bit of home defense in the first 2 min of game play for quicker 2*probe production. Is this viable?
Has the downside of losing every single worker if your opponent sends a single unit across the map. Might as well skip the scout, you die to anything anyway.
Your MMR tax looks like a feature of rounding. It is most likely not a whole number. So your wins against Mixu are probably exchanging between 7-8 MMR. Assuming both wins are exchanging the same amount, let's say it's 7.5 both times. I couldn't say the exact numbers, but in the background, it might've been something like: 6535.6 +7.5 = 6543.1 (seen as a diff of 7; 6536->6543) Then 6543.1 +7.5= 6550.6 (seen as a diff of 8; 6543->6551) Mixu's mightve been 5916.8 -7.5 = 5909.3 (seen as a diff of 8; 5917->5909) 5909.3 -7.5 = 5901.8 (seen as a diff of 7; 5909 -> 5902) I hope I got the maths right, but it's not uncommon in computing/software. I hope that makes it make more sense, Captain.
Yes - however the issue being that the second game should have netted a difference lower than the first based on the MMR. So if it were to be different on either game, the higher one should have almost always been the first, not the second game, otherwise the rounding is potentially random. It's not to say what you mentioned is not possible just seems like there is more to it.
Firstly - there are actual reasons for morphing here - but no idea what you're talking about lol. Even more concerning is are the people who liked your comment, clearly also having no idea lol. Morphing it does not prolong the death.. it will die at the same rate. It will only prolong the death if the morph completes, in which case you lose the supply cap anyway as soon as it becomes an overseer... so actually makes the supply cap reduction quicker, than if you hadn't morphed it.
Is there a way that Harstem could upload the videos of him playing in full ultra settings with all the cool post processing? I find myself more often than not confirming the video is in 1080p60fps purely because of how bad it looks. And I get it, pros are gonna do what pros do, but for the rest of us, man it would be nice to see those full graphics.
at 5 minutes all of his blunders are him trying to play 'beating grand masters with stupid stuff' in honor of playing against the almighty Harstem,..lol
A famous SC2 caster once said "SC2 is a mental game" - Kevin "Harstem" D. It def matters how long you spend verbally rehashing the failed dt before you mentally transition. I think uthermal does a better job than you at having an effective mentality. When something bad happens, try doing a concise, acknowledgement quickly followed by a purposeful verbal transition.
I am not gonna lie, but after watching this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_ru0pnAnq7g.htmlsi=S1o5ims_DY-bzw-k I noticed that @harstem says "I am not not gonna lie" or "to be honest" a lot in his videos. Now I wonder 🤔
