EPThttp://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-daily-306-a-simple-plan-hasuobs-pvt-5210490
My idea of a Protoss build. I'm a bronze player - Page 2
| Blogs > BlueOrange |
|
StrangrDangr
United States291 Posts
http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-daily-306-a-simple-plan-hasuobs-pvt-5210490 | ||
|
stilez
Mexico130 Posts
10 gateways on 2 bases lol. this is the defination of bronze-level macro. | ||
|
BlueOrange
Finland34 Posts
On June 10 2011 17:41 BobMcJohnson wrote: This. Zergs play like this because they have to choose between workers and army, as protoss you dont have to make this choice, since you can produce workers and units at the same time. This playstyle may be fun and may work in bronze (like basically anything), but in the end its not optimal, and if your goal is to move up and improve i dont think you should stick to it.  My goal is not only to improve in ranking, my goal is to improve my build. I know that Zerg works the way it does, and that Protoss can do both units and workers at the same time. But the only reason I brought zerg up is because they work so that they have less units in general, and when the attack is coming they burst out just enough to defend. Just like I play my build. I build up a lot of extra gateways only because I don't use all the money to units, since my plan isn't to max out as fast as possible. It's to survive until I have enough upgrades and unit producing structures that I can go to 200/200 and get back up to that position without having to take too long. But anyway... I guess it wasn't smart to come here and talk about my idea before it was refined to work. It was just stupid thinking I could have some constructive advice about a build that is clearly lacking refinement. Well, I apologize for everyone using their time to read this unrefined build and I apologize to everyone who had to use their time to write about how bad this build is and how I should play standard instead of the way I want to. Peace. | ||
|
BlueOrange
Finland34 Posts
On June 10 2011 17:52 stilez wrote: lol. this is the defination of bronze-level macro. Yeah, you totally miss the point. Please people, don't post anything if you're not even trying to think about what I'm saying. | ||
|
Severian
Australia2052 Posts
First, assume that he has 1-2 gateways more than he can support, but he's ALSO teching/expanding. Then, in a pinch, he can cancel all upgrades/buildings-in-construction and divert those funds to unit production. He will end up with less units than if he had just built the optimal number of gateways and used them constantly, but he'll have more units than if he just had the extra 1.5 zealots' worth of units from not building the extra gateway and banked the resources from canceling that stuff (or didn't cancel them at all). There's a few problems I can see with this, though: 1) You have to be sure that you're treading a fine-enough line. If you cancel all that stuff and hold comfortably, you've probably put yourself way behind. If the enemy doesn't attack before that stuff pays off, you're not playing optimally. 2) It's not the same problem as Zerg faces. With Zerg, you want to delay making units for as absolutely long as possible. With Protoss, it's better to keep making units than to tech/expand and have to cancel, as doing that wastes money. 3) You can somewhat emulate this strategy by spending chrono boost, rather than money on gateways, to increase production capacity. edit: and yes, you definitely are good enough to get out of Bronze by playing standard. | ||
|
stilez
Mexico130 Posts
On June 10 2011 17:53 BlueOrange wrote: Yeah, you totally miss the point. Please people, don't post anything if you're not even trying to think about what I'm saying. I see your point. Another terrible player theorycrafting about a strategy that will never work. I honestly cant imagine how bad your macro is, if you need 10 gates and double upgrades to spend your resources off two base. Are you perhaps playing this game blindfolded and by only using your left foot to macro? | ||
|
WormBeard
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
BlueOrange
Finland34 Posts
On June 10 2011 18:08 stilez wrote: I see your point. Another terrible player theorycrafting about a strategy that will never work. I honestly cant imagine how bad your macro is, if you need 10 gates and double upgrades to spend your resources off two base. Are you perhaps playing this game blindfolded and by only using your left foot to macro? Oh god.... The point is not to keep the money low 100% of the time. The idea is to keep adding structures, pile up some money, decide if I need units or can I build more structures and do what I see best fit. And if I went to 200/200 with a normal amount of structures, all the units died so I'd be 50/200 with 50 being only workers. I'd go back up to 100 with a "normal" build, but with a ton of extra gates I'll go up to 200/200 again in the same amount of time. The idea is to REINFORCE faster not to macro 100% perfectly and build 200/200 as fast as possible. | ||
|
WormBeard
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
Severian
Australia2052 Posts
On June 10 2011 18:15 BlueOrange wrote: Oh god.... The point is not to keep the money low 100% of the time. The idea is to keep adding structures, pile up some money, decide if I need units or can I build more structures and do what I see best fit. And if I went to 200/200 with a normal amount of structures, all the units died so I'd be 50/200 with 50 being only workers. I'd go back up to 100 with a "normal" build, but with a ton of extra gates I'll go up to 200/200 again in the same amount of time. The idea is to REINFORCE faster not to macro 100% perfectly and build 200/200 as fast as possible. It's better to accomplish that by building more Gateways once you hit 200/200. If you're only going to need them once you're maxed, why build them beforehand? | ||
|
WormBeard
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
BlueOrange
Finland34 Posts
On June 10 2011 18:18 Severian wrote: It's better to accomplish that by building more Gateways once you hit 200/200. If you're only going to need them once you're maxed, why build them beforehand? Because I want to? Man, it's getting annoying that everyone's suggesting me to play a "standard" build because it's better. Anyway, what if my forces get wiped before I get to 200/200 and I only have 6 gates? I'll lose. With the extra gates early on I can reinforce my army even before getting 200/200. Let's say I get the oh-so funny (everyone's quoting it and mocking me for it) 10 gates on 2 bases. I'll get 10 units out when I need to, I don't have to produce out of them all 100% of the time for them to be useful. You people think too much if it's good or bad and what's optimal or not. If I enjoyed playing a standard build that had a high win rate I would play that, obviously. But this is the build I enjoy the most, this is what works for me and this is how I want to play. THIS build is what I want to improve, this is how I want to play Protoss. I don't care how much you people say that it's bad and it will never work and I don't care about you suggesting other builds that would be better. I posted this to get advice on how to improve this build, and not on how to choose a better build. | ||
|
Severian
Australia2052 Posts
On June 10 2011 18:29 BlueOrange wrote: Because I want to? Man, it's getting annoying that everyone's suggesting me to play a "standard" build because it's better. It was not apparent from your OP that you didn't give a shit if the build was any good or not. It looked like you were trying to get honest opinions as to if it was feasible. If you don't want anyone telling you it's a bad idea, then I'm afraid you're not going to get many replies that you like. Anyway, what if my forces get wiped before I get to 200/200 and I only have 6 gates? I'll lose. With the extra gates early on I can reinforce my army even before getting 200/200. This is only true if you're not spending all your money. If you have the optimal number of gates (that being the number that you can constantly produce out of while keeping your money low), additional gates won't matter as you won't have the money to use them anyway. Let's say I get the oh-so funny (everyone's quoting it and mocking me for it) 10 gates on 2 bases. I'll get 10 units out when I need to, I don't have to produce out of them all 100% of the time for them to be useful. You people think too much if it's good or bad and what's optimal or not. If I enjoyed playing a standard build that had a high win rate I would play that, obviously. But this is the build I enjoy the most, this is what works for me and this is how I want to play. THIS build is what I want to improve, this is how I want to play Protoss. I don't care how much you people say that it's bad and it will never work and I don't care about you suggesting other builds that would be better. I posted this to get advice on how to improve this build, and not on how to choose a better build. You should've made that clearer then, because a lot of people coming into this thread (including me) are going to try to genuinely help you become a better player, not patronise you. The only actual difference between this playstyle and the standard playstyle is that you build extra gates and don't use them. The only way to improve it is to not do that, so I'm not sure what you want people to say. | ||
|
BlueOrange
Finland34 Posts
On June 10 2011 18:37 Severian wrote: It was not apparent from your OP that you didn't give a shit if the build was any good or not. It looked like you were trying to get honest opinions as to if it was feasible. If you don't want anyone telling you it's a bad idea, then I'm afraid you're not going to get many replies that you like. This is only true if you're not spending all your money. If you have the optimal number of gates (that being the number that you can constantly produce out of while keeping your money low), additional gates won't matter as you won't have the money to use them anyway. You should've made that clearer then, because a lot of people coming into this thread (including me) are going to try to genuinely help you become a better player, not patronise you. The only actual difference between this playstyle and the standard playstyle is that you build extra gates and don't use them. The only way to improve it is to not do that, so I'm not sure what you want people to say. I want people to give me opinions about this build and how to improve it, not to tell me "oololol this will never work play a standard build or you'll never get better" I want to get this kind of a build work, and I think most of the people are not even thinking what I'm trying to accomplish instead they only read the amount of gateways and immediately say "Lol that's awful" and stop the evaluation of the build right there. Yes I know I'd probably rank higher on a standard build, yes I know a standard build would be more effective and yes I know this build might be an awful one but I want to use it and I don't want people to tell me otherwise. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
That's pretty simple. Now when your income exceeds probe production, then you're deciding between gateways or units. With zerg you can use your extra "gateways" to build more drones, which you can't match, but at some point investing in gateways over units may lead to more units. This is actually kind of interesting. If your income is constant, then more gateways won't = more units, until you're near maxed (see next part). If your income is increasing, then you might need more gateways than you currently have, for which you sacrifice units. So I'd say if as long as a) you're not maxed and b) you have less gateways than can handle constant production of your maximum income, then there is value in investing in gateways instead of units. Preferably if you don't die. Because in those cases, unless you're maxed, there will never be a point where you can have more units once you exceed this maximum supportable gateways. Finally, when you're near the point when you can't build any more units, you choose between saving resources to build more units or building more gateways so you can build them faster. I can see saving some gateways for warpins, to function kind of like cannons as defense. | ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
I'm in the mood today. | ||
|
dartoo
India2889 Posts
| ||
|
Zortch
Canada635 Posts
That said I think its a cool idea ^^ | ||
|
BlueOrange
Finland34 Posts
On June 10 2011 23:19 dartoo wrote: Okay....just curious, how would you respond to a proxy raxes with a few scvs at about 4 minutes or so....seeing how your cybercore was up only at about 4:30 ish, and you had nothing else. there are so many ways to which this can die, before the 10 minute mark, by the time your grand plan kicks in. nr 10 minutes is not the way the game is played by most people. Well, I haven't met any proxy rax play so far, but I think I can conclude a proxy rax being done with scouting early, and if I do obviously I won't go for this build. Same as if I scout a 6pool I'll just wall myself with gate/forge and a pylon, then plant a cannon and pretty much do a 4gate or something. It's obvious this build won't do well against any early aggression, but I don't have to use it for when that happens. Actually I even had a game against a zerg who 10 pooled me, I just went for the forge+cannon wall in and then I built up some sentries and Stalkers, after that I expanded to my natural, made a stalker ball and won the game. But as I've said many times during all these posts I've made here, it's just what I started up with. I haven't refined it at all and I will in the future. Currently this build is in the "alpha" state so to say. I'll practice with it, play around with it and make another blog when I get it to work better and have it more reliable. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
I love gateway based armies and use pure gateway quite heavily vs T (although I tech to have archons not sure if you do too?) and it works quite well with chargelots and blink stalker/archon with like 10-12 gateways and 3-4 bases. | ||
| ||
