|
On December 29 2009 08:36 MuffinDude wrote:
Please summarize the whole point that kwark is making because after reading it couple times this is what I'm getting:
You will get an econ advantage.
You will get a tech advantage.
If it fails, then you will most likely lose like many other builds.
If you don't do as much damage as possible, then you will only be a bit behind.
I view cheese as something that will determine the flow of who is winning. This build if it doesn't do enough damage, will put you significantly behind for midgame because he will most likely have that early expo, and in many pvp, whoever have their expansion first will most likely win the game. This is what I'm getting to. Although you probably won't come out too far behind after failing, you will be put pretty far behind during mid-game because of this build.
So summarizing my point:
If it doesn't do enough, then you go down a base. Then you try busting their natural with superior tech, but it isn't as easy as busting their natural after a standard build because they will have about equal army size as you. That is why I think this build is a cheese. It sets you up for bad position going into midgame.
As I sidenote: I'm not understanding your views, but we are talking about the transition to midgame and we have not actually talked about it too much. And I'm not hating you guys either.
Oh I would love to play a game with you to try it out, but theres a problem with the disk drive and its not reading any cds right now.
That is an incorrect view of cheese, because technically If i have better EAPM (whatever that means) which determines the flow of who is winning then i would be cheesing, or If i have more experience on the game which also determines the flow of who is winning is cheesing, which you know it isnt like that.
The most neutral definition of cheese that i have seen in TL is defining it as an all-in strategy in which if you dont do enough damage in the first blow YOU LOSE THE GAME. Basically what they are saying is that cheese and all-in is basically the same.
There are some other definitions, for me the best was this one:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2009 02:24 Phrujbaz wrote:I don't write dictionaries. This is the actual dictionary definition of cheesy: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheesy4. (informal) of a solution to a problem, inelegant, showing no skill (see brute force method) I applied this definition to starcraft, seeing what defines a strategy that is inelegant/has no skill. The following are elements that I think show you are aren't trying to outplay your opponent but simply trying to get a cheap win: 1) Commit to it before scouting 2) High-risk strategy 3) Main strength is element of surprise 4) Leaves you at a large disadvantage if stopped So I think these elements are what define cheesy strategies. Boxer 3-0 over yellow was not cheese. Bunker rush actually fails the cheese definition on all counts! Boxer's all in rine+scv rush only fits the definition at point 4. He had already scouted at that point, and just went for the quickest win. Show nested quote +That's not different than 2 hatch muta compared to 3 hatch muta: if you don't make damage, you lose, as your eceonomy is weaker than the terran's one. So... Is 2 hatch muta cheese? Let's check if 2 hat muta is cheese: 1) commit to before scouting? -> no 2) high-risk strategy? -> no 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> no It seems it's not. Yes, you can debate on some of them but let's compare to four pool 1) commit to before scouting? -> definitely yes 2) high-risk strategy? -> definitely yes 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely yes 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely yes 4pool is clearly cheese Show nested quote +Now, I just lost a game where I succesfully blocked a 4 pool. So your definition is wrong again. 4 pool is not less viable than 12 hatch, you just need to make damage because you invested early game into an agressive playstyle. Honestly if you scout a four pool and micro intelligently, he will be so much at a disadvantage it's not even funny. If you kill the last zergling with your last SCV so you have one SCV left I don't think you really defended the four pool. You actually died to it, just decided to play out instead of gg immediately.
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
So even though is a risky build it is not cheese if correctly executed. What I argue is that most of us are not in the level to execute that build correctly which makes it an all-in build because if you dont know what to do after you proxy gated then you are pretty much screwed.
But if you know what to do and you do it correctly it simply works as a normal econ BO with a little bit more micro.
Now; my position is that just because of the fact that after you shutdown my gates and pylon I am still able to go to mid-game therefore this build is not cheese. You want to talk about if when you enter mid-game you enter with a disadvantage or not but that is a very extensive and very dependent topic because that really depends on execution, how well did you follow up, Player skills and other things like any other BO.
I am telling you that if you and me both do the same BO and you are just slightly better than me you will win. Thats exactly the same way proxy gate will turn out in the end.
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:
Yes I have. Many, many times. Like when I said "What happens if you fast expand but don't mine". The assumption of this build is that against an opponent of equal skill you will disrupt their econ enough. If I used this build against a player who reacted optimally and outmicroed me significantly I'd be behind. If I used this build against a player who reacted optimally and microed poorly I'd be ahead. If we were of equal skill we'd be roughly even. As with any build. The assumption of the build is that you micro it competently, just as the assumption of 2 hat muta builds in ZvT is that you know how to muta harass. Obviously against a significantly better player you'll come out behind but that is the case with every build and is not a problem with the build but the execution.
Thats what he said and thats what i believe...
If I am worse player than you then you will win no matter of what BO we use. Thats why progamers will kick my ass no matter how many times i play with them.
I am am a better player than you then this BO gives me an economic advantage in which i will build upon to win.
If we have exactly the same abilities then this game will be roughly EVEN. So doesnt matter how you see it this BO is not cheese, and no you wont be in a disadvantage in mid-game... IF YOU KNOW HOW TO PLAY IT.
|
On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote:
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it.
1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese.
2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes.
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no.
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
|
On December 26 2009 08:22 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2009 08:13 Fontong wrote:On December 26 2009 06:38 MuffinDude wrote:
Ok, I just added the situation. Its Pvp and the proxy building is halfway and beyond on the map. Er there are exceptions to this rule right? Proxy gate in your opponent base can be an economic opening. What how? If it fails you lose a gateway and a pylon. Thats huge.
muffin note that Kwark is not the only one who states that proxy 2gate on opponents base is an economic BO... That was on the first pages of the thread, and since then you didnt understand why that build is econ instead of all-in.
I bet fontong understand the underlying plan of this build.
And yes it is like any other BO.
|
To cheese or not to cheese, that is the question.
Cheesy: "Of poor quality; shoddy." or "Inferior or cheap; chintzy." (www.dictionary.com)
Thus, the term cheese should apply to anything that shouldn't work, but gets a win regardless. Like when a newb proxy gates in the worst spot possible, and the superior player doesn't scout there because it would be such a bad place to proxy. The term "cheese" really is just a complaint to mean "That was stupid and shouldn't have worked, but because it was so stupid and easy to do, you actually got away with it. You bastard."
Couldn't we come up with some more helpful and precise terms to describe unorthodox or risky strategies, instead of just lumping them all into the category of "shitty, cheap newbplay".
Side note: I've often considered something "cheesy" when it's all my opponent is capable of. When all he can do are shitty tricks and ultimately has nothing else to back it up, emphasizing how cheap and inferior his skills are, I consider him a cheesy player. But that's just about judging a specific player. The cheese itself, the actual strategy or tactic in the game, should be judged by its effectiveness and a risk/reward type measurement, like harassment or hidden expansions.
|
On December 29 2009 09:30 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote:
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible. Show nested quote +
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no. So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
1)
no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it?
2)
no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong.
3)
Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it.
4)
It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage....
Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand.
|
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
Seriously. That's so arbitrary that it's funny. You are talking out of nothing. Then a 2 factory opening is a 25% cheese because it leaves you at a big disadvantge if defended. Do you always reason with theses kind of awful decadent pseudo cartesianist sophisms?
So, ladies and gentlemen (drums)
2 port gate tvz is 38,6% a cheese, considering the risk taking, the scouting element and all the shit.
Wait... should I nerd rage or not? Let me look at my calculator.
Oh! I have an idea! When you get cheesed at 75% you should nerd rage at 75% too. If it's on the map on the week, you can add 6%, and if you are higher rank than your opponent, you can multiply by 1,2 per superior rank and substract 2% if you are at D level. And if you were born on a month starting with S, you can also add 3% on raging.
PS: By the way, I understand that you don't want me on this thread, but since I am a member of this forum and as mods apparently still think that I am decent member enough not to get perma ban, you don't have any legitimity to tell me to shut up. :-)
|
LOL
that was a quality post!
|
On December 29 2009 09:42 RaptorX wrote:
LOL
that was a quality post!
Thanks, I feel honoured. :-)
|
On December 29 2009 09:37 RaptorX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2009 09:30 MuffinDude wrote:On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote:
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no. So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book. 1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it? 2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong. 3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it. 4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage.... Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand.
1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it?
2. hey you said yes yourself here.
3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way.
4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage
On December 29 2009 09:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Seriously. That's so arbitrary that it's funny. You are talking out of nothing. Then a 2 factory opening is a 25% cheese because it leaves you at a big disadvantge if defended. Do you always reason with theses kind of awful decadent pseudo cartesianist sophisms? So, ladies and gentlemen (drums) 2 port gate tvz is 38,6% a cheese, considering the risk taking, the scouting element and all the shit. Wait... should I nerd rage or not? Let me look at my calculator. Oh! I have an idea! When you get cheesed at 75% you should nerd rage at 75% too. If it's on the map on the week, you can add 6%, and if you are higher rank than your opponent, you can multiply by 1,2 per superior rank and substract 2% if you are at D level. And if you were born on a month starting with S, you can also add 3% on raging. PS: By the way, I understand that you don't want me on this thread, but since I am a member of this forum and as mods apparently still think that I am decent member enough not to get perma ban, you don't have any legitimity to tell me to shut up. :-)
"I am decent member enough not to get perma ban" Does this mean you were temp banned before? And off topic~ You're posts tend to go off topic thats why I don't want you here. -_-
|
On December 29 2009 09:48 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2009 09:37 RaptorX wrote:On December 29 2009 09:30 MuffinDude wrote:On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote:
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no. So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book. 1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it? 2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong. 3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it. 4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage.... Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand. 1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it? 2. hey you said yes yourself here. 3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way. 4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage Show nested quote +On December 29 2009 09:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book. Seriously. That's so arbitrary that it's funny. You are talking out of nothing. Then a 2 factory opening is a 25% cheese because it leaves you at a big disadvantge if defended. Do you always reason with theses kind of awful decadent pseudo cartesianist sophisms? So, ladies and gentlemen (drums) 2 port gate tvz is 38,6% a cheese, considering the risk taking, the scouting element and all the shit. Wait... should I nerd rage or not? Let me look at my calculator. Oh! I have an idea! When you get cheesed at 75% you should nerd rage at 75% too. If it's on the map on the week, you can add 6%, and if you are higher rank than your opponent, you can multiply by 1,2 per superior rank and substract 2% if you are at D level. And if you were born on a month starting with S, you can also add 3% on raging. PS: By the way, I understand that you don't want me on this thread, but since I am a member of this forum and as mods apparently still think that I am decent member enough not to get perma ban, you don't have any legitimity to tell me to shut up. :-) "I am decent member enough not to get perma ban" Does this mean you were temp banned before? And off topic~ You're posts tend to go off topic thats why I don't want you here. -_-
Nah. I'm not off topic. I've been discussing the validity of your idea and of some of your points. I know I am not being very nice to your thread, but I sincerly think it is harmful. And I haven't been banned a single minute as you could check on the very beloved enjoyable automated ban list.
|
On December 29 2009 09:48 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2009 09:37 RaptorX wrote:On December 29 2009 09:30 MuffinDude wrote:On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote:
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no. So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book. 1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it? 2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong. 3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it. 4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage.... Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand. 1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it? 2. hey you said yes yourself here. 3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way. 4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage
You are not 100% committed to this build, you can cancel the gates while they are warping or you can build only 1gate or you just build a pylon to make him over react and you just build in your main instead... you dont have to do 2gates all the time or even let them finish. When you send 4 rines and all your SVC's you go with it and hope god protects you... is not the same.
What i said is that micro is an important part of it not that it boils down to it and no 4gate goon is not cheese is just a counter to 2gate > robo which can go to 3gate goon....
Yes but that doesnt mean that that is the most important part of the build... look, if he doesnt get surprised and he doesnt pull probes because he knows what you are trying to do then you just throw down a second gate. It is not the surprise what makes this work... if he throws down a second gate, then you both are going to micro while you harass his probes delaying his mining cycle while you get an economic advantage... Even if scouted the main purpose of this build is not to win even though some times you can, so it is not surprise.
when i mentioned that I was referring to your statements of "i have more zealots so i can contain you and expand".
That in YOUR eyes is a disadvantage and i am not going to spend my time arguing that, thats why i still added "but this is still a NO" because from our point of view it is not a disadvantage. I did no see that it was a quote of mine cause here is late and i am tired and this is getting too long for nothing.
At the end you guys will still think it is a "cheese" while we state that is an econ build. So this is for nothing
|
On December 29 2009 09:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2009 09:48 MuffinDude wrote:On December 29 2009 09:37 RaptorX wrote:On December 29 2009 09:30 MuffinDude wrote:On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote:
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no. So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book. 1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it? 2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong. 3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it. 4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage.... Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand. 1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it? 2. hey you said yes yourself here. 3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way. 4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage On December 29 2009 09:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book. Seriously. That's so arbitrary that it's funny. You are talking out of nothing. Then a 2 factory opening is a 25% cheese because it leaves you at a big disadvantge if defended. Do you always reason with theses kind of awful decadent pseudo cartesianist sophisms? So, ladies and gentlemen (drums) 2 port gate tvz is 38,6% a cheese, considering the risk taking, the scouting element and all the shit. Wait... should I nerd rage or not? Let me look at my calculator. Oh! I have an idea! When you get cheesed at 75% you should nerd rage at 75% too. If it's on the map on the week, you can add 6%, and if you are higher rank than your opponent, you can multiply by 1,2 per superior rank and substract 2% if you are at D level. And if you were born on a month starting with S, you can also add 3% on raging. PS: By the way, I understand that you don't want me on this thread, but since I am a member of this forum and as mods apparently still think that I am decent member enough not to get perma ban, you don't have any legitimity to tell me to shut up. :-) "I am decent member enough not to get perma ban" Does this mean you were temp banned before? And off topic~ You're posts tend to go off topic thats why I don't want you here. -_- Nah. I'm not off topic. I've been discussing the validity of your idea and of some of your points. I know I am not being very nice to your thread, but I sincerly think it is harmful. And I haven't been banned a single minute as you could check on the very beloved enjoyable automated ban list.
Yes you are off topic. If you want to discuss the validity of calling a build a cheese, you can do it somewhere else, make your own thread if you're so passionate about it. and congrats on not getting banned once. I guess thats what i'm supposed to say.
On December 29 2009 10:05 RaptorX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2009 09:48 MuffinDude wrote:On December 29 2009 09:37 RaptorX wrote:On December 29 2009 09:30 MuffinDude wrote:On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote:
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting.
2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes.
3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no
4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no. So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book. 1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it? 2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong. 3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it. 4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage.... Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand. 1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it? 2. hey you said yes yourself here. 3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way. 4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage You are not 100% committed to this build, you can cancel the gates while they are warping or you can build only 1gate or you just build a pylon to make him over react and you just build in your main instead... you dont have to do 2gates all the time or even let them finish. When you send 4 rines and all your SVC's you go with it and hope god protects you... is not the same. What i said is that micro is an important part of it not that it boils down to it and no 4gate goon is not cheese is just a counter to 2gate > robo which can go to 3gate goon.... Yes but that doesnt mean that that is the most important part of the build... look, if he doesnt get surprised and he doesnt pull probes because he knows what you are trying to do then you just throw down a second gate. It is not the surprise what makes this work... if he throws down a second gate, then you both are going to micro while you harass his probes delaying his mining cycle while you get an economic advantage... Even if scouted the main purpose of this build is not to win even though some times you can, so it is not surprise. when i mentioned that I was referring to your statements of "i have more zealots so i can contain you and expand". That in YOUR eyes is a disadvantage and i am not going to spend my time arguing that, thats why i still added "but this is still a NO" because from our point of view it is not a disadvantage. I did no see that it was a quote of mine cause here is late and i am tired and this is getting too long for nothing. At the end you guys will still think it is a "cheese" while we state that is an econ build. So this is for nothing
Woah woah woah. Calm down. I just took some of your quotes to show where you contradicted yourself.
when i mentioned that I was referring to your statements of "i have more zealots so i can contain you and expand".
That in YOUR eyes is a disadvantage and i am not going to spend my time arguing that, thats why i still added "but this is still a NO" because from our point of view it is not a disadvantage. I did no see that it was a quote of mine cause here is late and i am tired and this is getting too long for nothing.
That is a pretty big disadvantage if you think about it. You are going to lose you economic edge. I was getting into this discussion because it seems like this build is prone to getting contained, but you seemed too tired for this so oh well.
I honestly see why you guys don't see this build as cheese, but midgame play that follows this concerns me.
|
On December 26 2009 09:01 EsX_Raptor wrote:
Cheese
-noun
Term used by mediocre, incompetent Star Craft players to refer to an opposing strategy meant to defeat them in less than 10 minutes.
-verb
To use an all-in-by-nature type of strategy to take out an equally, or higher skilled opponent swiftly.
Whaaa? I got this:
–noun
1. the curd of milk separated from the whey and prepared in many ways as a food.
On a more serious note, awesome thread.. love how you added videos.
|
Please ignore this, my bad, y'all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
