On December 27 2009 19:03 FabledIntegral wrote: Let it be said I don't think many people are arguing so much as that cheese is the bane of Starcraft strategy - it's more to discuss what constitutes a "cheese build."
"Cheese build" is a vague neologism. It's not about discussing what build is a cheese build, it's about deciding what "cheese build" means. Same shit than for bonjwa.
On December 27 2009 19:03 FabledIntegral wrote: Let it be said I don't think many people are arguing so much as that cheese is the bane of Starcraft strategy - it's more to discuss what constitutes a "cheese build."
"Cheese build" is a vague neologism. It's not about discussing what build is a cheese build, it's about deciding what "cheese build" means. Same shit than for bonjwa.
What is the purpose of that?
I get the feeling that before we can discuss further into these kind of things, we need to have a clear cut line on what cheese is and what isn't.
On December 26 2009 13:04 Chen wrote: [quote] Opponent must cut alot of probes. you dont. you can tech a shitton faster than he can.
And have no gateways to use the tech on?
ok, you clearly haven't watched enough games to say that
Thats way too map specific. Try that on a map besides plasma and I'll guarantee you'll fail. There will always be an exception to the rules.
yeah bisu failed in this game didnt he
Sigh. Bunch of retards. I didn't write it properly, but I meant if the 2 gate if fended off then stork would of been fucked on any other map besides plasma. The point of cheese is that if it works you win, and it worked for bisu. Can we get back on track now discussing whether 2 gate is a cheese. Its because of retards like you that we get off track so easily, going what about this. Well what about this. There will always be an exception so live with it.
I see that you have given up defending your position and have instead resorted to calling me a retard.
Did you even watch Best vs Stork? Stork already had a gate and zealots in base by the time the cheese had been fended off. He also had a core finished and the robotics going up. Stop pulling shit out of your ass and actually watch the games.
I did watch the game and I can easily determine if the lurker eggs weren't there best would of rolled over stork with a bigger zealot army and a slightly better zealot production.
Now I will analyze the game for you since you don't believe me.
@5:54, I can easily call this economic disruption as dead. Why? Because stork had one almost dead zealot and no pylons supplying energy to the gateways. Here, best had 4 zealots and stork was just warping in a cybernetics core and a gateway. Now if the lurker eggs weren't there and even if we extend the rushing distance to about HBR's, best can pull off 3 zealot to stork's base, having one zealot chase down that already dead zealot and then proceed to kill the gateways, and stork might be able to make one zealot from the gateway. Best with 3 zealot and 2 gateways to work with would of easily broke into stork's base and rip shit up.
You're wrong. Horror gates (including 2 gate in their base variations) work on almost every 2 player map as an economic opening. The point is you kill their probes, force them to take probes off mining and disrupt mining while suiciding some buildings. In turn your stronger economy + travel time allows you to make up for the minerals invested in the buildings to survive short term and get ahead long term. It's not that complicated really.
Sure, but at that point, stork would of definitely lost if the lurker eggs weren't there. His gateway was just warping in and best could of just sent 3 zealot to kill him off.
I'm guessing Stork was aware that the lurker eggs were there and made as many units as he needed to defend on a map with lurker eggs. On a map without lurker eggs he'd make as many units as he needed to defend on a map without lurker eggs. As long as he avoids any confusion on the lurker egg question his build should be safe. You can't apply one context on one map to other maps like that.
Sigh. Bunch of retards. I didn't write it properly, but I meant if the 2 gate if fended off then stork would of been fucked on any other map besides plasma. The point of cheese is that if it works you win, and it worked for bisu. Can we get back on track now discussing whether 2 gate is a cheese. Its because of retards like you that we get off track so easily, going what about this. Well what about this. There will always be an exception so live with it.
I see that you have given up defending your position and have instead resorted to calling me a retard.
Did you even watch Best vs Stork? Stork already had a gate and zealots in base by the time the cheese had been fended off. He also had a core finished and the robotics going up. Stop pulling shit out of your ass and actually watch the games.
I did watch the game and I can easily determine if the lurker eggs weren't there best would of rolled over stork with a bigger zealot army and a slightly better zealot production.
Now I will analyze the game for you since you don't believe me.
@5:54, I can easily call this economic disruption as dead. Why? Because stork had one almost dead zealot and no pylons supplying energy to the gateways. Here, best had 4 zealots and stork was just warping in a cybernetics core and a gateway. Now if the lurker eggs weren't there and even if we extend the rushing distance to about HBR's, best can pull off 3 zealot to stork's base, having one zealot chase down that already dead zealot and then proceed to kill the gateways, and stork might be able to make one zealot from the gateway. Best with 3 zealot and 2 gateways to work with would of easily broke into stork's base and rip shit up.
You're wrong. Horror gates (including 2 gate in their base variations) work on almost every 2 player map as an economic opening. The point is you kill their probes, force them to take probes off mining and disrupt mining while suiciding some buildings. In turn your stronger economy + travel time allows you to make up for the minerals invested in the buildings to survive short term and get ahead long term. It's not that complicated really.
Sure, but at that point, stork would of definitely lost if the lurker eggs weren't there. His gateway was just warping in and best could of just sent 3 zealot to kill him off.
I'm guessing Stork was aware that the lurker eggs were there and made as many units as he needed to defend on a map with lurker eggs. On a map without lurker eggs he'd make as many units as he needed to defend on a map without lurker eggs. As long as he avoids any confusion on the lurker egg question his build should be safe. You can't apply one context on one map to other maps like that.
Its definitely map specific, but if you proxy 2 gate into their mineral line on any other map, is it considered a cheese?
I say yes because if you lose it you're pretty much fcked.
On December 27 2009 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 19:03 FabledIntegral wrote: Let it be said I don't think many people are arguing so much as that cheese is the bane of Starcraft strategy - it's more to discuss what constitutes a "cheese build."
"Cheese build" is a vague neologism. It's not about discussing what build is a cheese build, it's about deciding what "cheese build" means. Same shit than for bonjwa.
What is the purpose of that?
I get the feeling that before we can discuss further into these kind of things, we need to have a clear cut line on what cheese is and what isn't.
Well, it depends what you like and dislike in starcraft. For some people any kind of strategical playing is cheese and therefore gay.
My argument is that cheese is pejorative. We are discussing what is worthy and what is not in Starcraft and that's it.
Was July's set 1 and 2 against BeSt cheese? For me it was one of the best ZvP serie ever, with a 4 pool in set 1 and the drone drill atack on Troy in set 2.
So before discussing what is cheese and what is not, try to make a honest defintion of cheese. You opened this thread after raging on Shine strategic play, so I guess for you cheese is what is lame and gay in starcraft. Therefore for me, nothing is cheese.
Sigh. Bunch of retards. I didn't write it properly, but I meant if the 2 gate if fended off then stork would of been fucked on any other map besides plasma. The point of cheese is that if it works you win, and it worked for bisu. Can we get back on track now discussing whether 2 gate is a cheese. Its because of retards like you that we get off track so easily, going what about this. Well what about this. There will always be an exception so live with it.
I see that you have given up defending your position and have instead resorted to calling me a retard.
Did you even watch Best vs Stork? Stork already had a gate and zealots in base by the time the cheese had been fended off. He also had a core finished and the robotics going up. Stop pulling shit out of your ass and actually watch the games.
I did watch the game and I can easily determine if the lurker eggs weren't there best would of rolled over stork with a bigger zealot army and a slightly better zealot production.
Now I will analyze the game for you since you don't believe me.
@5:54, I can easily call this economic disruption as dead. Why? Because stork had one almost dead zealot and no pylons supplying energy to the gateways. Here, best had 4 zealots and stork was just warping in a cybernetics core and a gateway. Now if the lurker eggs weren't there and even if we extend the rushing distance to about HBR's, best can pull off 3 zealot to stork's base, having one zealot chase down that already dead zealot and then proceed to kill the gateways, and stork might be able to make one zealot from the gateway. Best with 3 zealot and 2 gateways to work with would of easily broke into stork's base and rip shit up.
You're wrong. Horror gates (including 2 gate in their base variations) work on almost every 2 player map as an economic opening. The point is you kill their probes, force them to take probes off mining and disrupt mining while suiciding some buildings. In turn your stronger economy + travel time allows you to make up for the minerals invested in the buildings to survive short term and get ahead long term. It's not that complicated really.
Sure, but at that point, stork would of definitely lost if the lurker eggs weren't there. His gateway was just warping in and best could of just sent 3 zealot to kill him off.
I'm guessing Stork was aware that the lurker eggs were there and made as many units as he needed to defend on a map with lurker eggs. On a map without lurker eggs he'd make as many units as he needed to defend on a map without lurker eggs. As long as he avoids any confusion on the lurker egg question his build should be safe. You can't apply one context on one map to other maps like that.
Its definitely map specific, but if you proxy 2 gate into their mineral line on any other map, is it considered a cheese?
I say yes because if you lose it you're pretty much fcked.
No, if you lose it without doing damage you're pretty much fucked. But that's like saying if you fast expand and don't do any mining you're fucked. The assumption of the build is that it will, with normal micro from each player, do damage. If you lose it, which you intend to as part of an economic build, you're not fucked. This is because you can buy sufficient time to make more gateways in your main while damaging his economy. You're not just limited to 2 gateways. You can make a 3rd in your main. You can make a battery if needed while stealing their gas. There's all sorts you can do. As I keep saying, you can lose the 2 gateways and be fine on maps that aren't Plasma as long as you don't base your defence around the map being Plasma. If for example, you're playing on HBR, you can base your defence around travel times for his army on HBR. You can't take a Plasma vod and say "he made enough units to defend on Plasma, if he used that many units on HBR he'd lose, therefore the entire concept is invalid on HBR". It doesn't work like that.
On December 27 2009 21:34 KwarK wrote: No, if you lose it without doing damage you're pretty much fucked. But that's like saying if you fast expand and don't do any mining you're fucked.
That's the best thing I've heard in this thread.
When I started playing starcraft, a cheese was a completely all-in build. 4 pool is not completely all in. You have to do damage, but it's just an agressive opening. Cheese was usually stuff like marines + scv rush. That's all in. Proxy gate is just a very agressive opening and so is 4 pool.
For example BBS in TvT is a cheese. You know that if you don't purely win straight there, you are fucked. You don't do damage and then go on a low eco build, you kill or you lose. Same for Stylish Rofl strat, where you rush a zerg with 4 rines and all your scvs.
Now I laugh so hard when I hear people saying that Luxury is all in ish and cheesy. Any kinf of build which favour agression over economy is considered as all in or cheese.
The funny thing is that I would say that around 80-90% of the people here in TL play on ICCup and I get the impression that in ICCup they would nerdrage and cry: "you fucking noob, cheese rusher, i hope you die on cancer because of cheesing" but then here in TL they will come up with: "There is no such thing as cheese only aggressive builds"...
shame on you guys...
I believe that 2gate = aggressive build proxy 2gate anywhere on the map = cheese
For me cheese is that freaking aggressive build that puts you in a great disadvantage if you dont win with it or if the damage you do is not enough to keep you on the game.
On December 27 2009 23:27 RaptorX wrote: The funny thing is that I would say that around 80-90% of the people here in TL play on ICCup and I get the impression that in ICCup they would nerdrage and cry: "you fucking noob, cheese rusher, i hope you die on cancer because of cheesing" but then here in TL they will come up with: "There is no such thing as cheese only aggressive builds"...
I remember someone used to call 14CC as cheese in TvsZ because it gives you huge advantage if not scouted and pretty much fucked if spotted, and now we consider it by the same logic as greedy build
On December 27 2009 23:27 RaptorX wrote: The funny thing is that I would say that around 80-90% of the people here in TL play on ICCup and I get the impression that in ICCup they would nerdrage and cry: "you fucking noob, cheese rusher, i hope you die on cancer because of cheesing" but then here in TL they will come up with: "There is no such thing as cheese only aggressive builds"...
shame on you guys...
I believe that 2gate = aggressive build proxy 2gate anywhere on the map = cheese
For me cheese is that freaking aggressive build that puts you in a great disadvantage if you dont win with it or if the damage you do is not enough to keep you on the game.
I never nerd rage, if you talk about me, and I consider that someone who BBS me succesfully deserves his win more than I do. I haven't played a game without gging perfectly courteously, and especially if I have lost it, for years.
I respect Starcraft too much to claim that some strategies are unlegit. A game with unlegit strategies would be a poor game.
To me, cheese builds are builds that if you fail, you lose the game 90% of the time. Gay builds, on the other hand, are builds that can kill the opponent quickly, but still not put you behind that much. Examples include dt expand in pvt, 8 rax in tvz, and pretty much any ling build in z v anything?
On December 28 2009 02:02 KvkG wrote: To me, cheese builds are builds that if you fail, you lose the game 90% of the time. Gay builds, on the other hand, are builds that can kill the opponent quickly, but still not put you behind that much. Examples include dt expand in pvt, 8 rax in tvz, and pretty much any ling build in z v anything?
Boxer is really gay then. And players who play 1 rax FE every single game are really balsy.
I am sad for you guys. You miss all what is really cool in starcraft.
Plus, why "gay"? Is there a problem with being gay?
All the reason for creating this "Cheez" definition is because better player does not always win. There are many strategies that require less skill than 'standard' ones and that allow to beat the better player.
I guess we want to define it as clearly as possible - because the less it is defined - the more "anyone" can discredit your/his win/lose by saying that u "cheezed" and u r not better, u r just fucking newb who "cheezed". We don`t like it in a long run so, yeah, hail "cheeze" definition : D
On December 28 2009 02:31 UFO wrote: All the reason for creating this "Cheez" definition is because better player does not always win. There are many strategies that require less skill than 'standard' ones and that allow to beat the better player.
I guess we want to define it as clearly as possible - because the less it is defined - the more "anyone" can discredit your/his win/lose by saying that u "cheezed" and u r not better, u r just fucking newb who "cheezed". We don`t like it in a long run so, yeah, hail "cheeze" definition : D
No. Nobody should ever be discredited for winning ever.
This discussion is fucking stupid as long as you use cheese in a pejorative way.
People who rage when they lose to strategic / agressive builds are retarded kids. Period. If someone two ranks lower than I am pulls off a BBS against me, I will reconsider my scouting, and admit that he found a intelligent way to win against me with inferior mechanics.
On December 27 2009 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 19:03 FabledIntegral wrote: Let it be said I don't think many people are arguing so much as that cheese is the bane of Starcraft strategy - it's more to discuss what constitutes a "cheese build."
"Cheese build" is a vague neologism. It's not about discussing what build is a cheese build, it's about deciding what "cheese build" means. Same shit than for bonjwa.
What is the purpose of that?
I get the feeling that before we can discuss further into these kind of things, we need to have a clear cut line on what cheese is and what isn't.
Well, it depends what you like and dislike in starcraft. For some people any kind of strategical playing is cheese and therefore gay.
My argument is that cheese is pejorative. We are discussing what is worthy and what is not in Starcraft and that's it.
Was July's set 1 and 2 against BeSt cheese? For me it was one of the best ZvP serie ever, with a 4 pool in set 1 and the drone drill atack on Troy in set 2.
So before discussing what is cheese and what is not, try to make a honest defintion of cheese. You opened this thread after raging on Shine strategic play, so I guess for you cheese is what is lame and gay in starcraft. Therefore for me, nothing is cheese.
On December 28 2009 01:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 23:27 RaptorX wrote: The funny thing is that I would say that around 80-90% of the people here in TL play on ICCup and I get the impression that in ICCup they would nerdrage and cry: "you fucking noob, cheese rusher, i hope you die on cancer because of cheesing" but then here in TL they will come up with: "There is no such thing as cheese only aggressive builds"...
shame on you guys...
I believe that 2gate = aggressive build proxy 2gate anywhere on the map = cheese
For me cheese is that freaking aggressive build that puts you in a great disadvantage if you dont win with it or if the damage you do is not enough to keep you on the game.
I never nerd rage, if you talk about me, and I consider that someone who BBS me succesfully deserves his win more than I do. I haven't played a game without gging perfectly courteously, and especially if I have lost it, for years.
I respect Starcraft too much to claim that some strategies are unlegit. A game with unlegit strategies would be a poor game.
Seriously. You are nerd raging right here. I made this not for shine v stork, but more for jaedong v flash. If you just want to come here and talk about how stupid this is, then just leave.
And proxy 2-gate in opponent's base is very costly. You need at least 2 pylons, since 1 is going to be taken down and 2 gateways. If you lose those, you lose 500 minerals worth of things. If a player plays smart, I'm pretty sure they can lose less than 300~400 worth of stuff, and it could be very damaging. Afterwards, I would be surprise whoever did this have proxy 2-gate have more than a gateway in their base. This feels like an all in since you're going to be losing tons of pylons and 2 gateways. Like how is proxy 2-gate any different from this?
On December 27 2009 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 19:54 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 27 2009 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 19:03 FabledIntegral wrote: Let it be said I don't think many people are arguing so much as that cheese is the bane of Starcraft strategy - it's more to discuss what constitutes a "cheese build."
"Cheese build" is a vague neologism. It's not about discussing what build is a cheese build, it's about deciding what "cheese build" means. Same shit than for bonjwa.
What is the purpose of that?
I get the feeling that before we can discuss further into these kind of things, we need to have a clear cut line on what cheese is and what isn't.
Well, it depends what you like and dislike in starcraft. For some people any kind of strategical playing is cheese and therefore gay.
My argument is that cheese is pejorative. We are discussing what is worthy and what is not in Starcraft and that's it.
Was July's set 1 and 2 against BeSt cheese? For me it was one of the best ZvP serie ever, with a 4 pool in set 1 and the drone drill atack on Troy in set 2.
So before discussing what is cheese and what is not, try to make a honest defintion of cheese. You opened this thread after raging on Shine strategic play, so I guess for you cheese is what is lame and gay in starcraft. Therefore for me, nothing is cheese.
On December 28 2009 01:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 23:27 RaptorX wrote: The funny thing is that I would say that around 80-90% of the people here in TL play on ICCup and I get the impression that in ICCup they would nerdrage and cry: "you fucking noob, cheese rusher, i hope you die on cancer because of cheesing" but then here in TL they will come up with: "There is no such thing as cheese only aggressive builds"...
shame on you guys...
I believe that 2gate = aggressive build proxy 2gate anywhere on the map = cheese
For me cheese is that freaking aggressive build that puts you in a great disadvantage if you dont win with it or if the damage you do is not enough to keep you on the game.
I never nerd rage, if you talk about me, and I consider that someone who BBS me succesfully deserves his win more than I do. I haven't played a game without gging perfectly courteously, and especially if I have lost it, for years.
I respect Starcraft too much to claim that some strategies are unlegit. A game with unlegit strategies would be a poor game.
Seriously. You are nerd raging right here. I made this not for shine v stork, but more for jaedong v flash. If you just want to come here and talk about how stupid this is, then just leave.
And proxy 2-gate in opponent's base is very costly. You need at least 2 pylons, since 1 is going to be taken down and 2 gateways. If you lose those, you lose 500 minerals worth of things. If a player plays smart, I'm pretty sure they can lose less than 300~400 worth of stuff, and it could be very damaging. Afterwards, I would be surprise whoever did this have proxy 2-gate have more than a gateway in their base. This feels like an all in since you're going to be losing tons of pylons and 2 gateways. Like how is proxy 2-gate any different from this?
If the opponent is attacking your pylon and it's going down you don't decide to add a second gateway. That'd be retarded, he's already doing economic damage to himself by attacking it with probes. Sigh. I don't understand how you're not getting this but I'll try and explaining it again. What you do is influenced by the context.
So, returning to the horror gates scenario. If you're horror gating in his base and he realises it's an economic opening and doesn't panic and just ignores it you can go for a fast second gate and a battery and fuck his economy that way. If on the other hand he pulls probes and tries to kill it asap you can not even start to build a zealot because he's taking your gateway down, instead you make a pylon in your main faster and have your main gateway up in time to defend your main.
If he's already fucking his economy to make sure the gateways are blocked you don't go allin 2 gateways and lose because then you're fucked. But I shouldn't have to explain this, especially for a 3rd time. If he's fucking his economy to block you you've already done your damage. You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it and then you kill a load of probes before he cleans it up and then you're ahead.
If you actually played PvP you'd understand. You keep presenting these retarded examples like "if Stork did his Plasma build on a map that wasn't Plasma" or "if a player decided to go allin horror gates against a player who was clearly countering horror gates" then it'd be cheesey. Nobody is doing that. There is a viable situation for 2 gate horror gates. It's when you open 1 gate horror gates and the guy goes pylon gateway pylon without reacting.
Edit: Go 1 horror gate. Situation 1: He pulls a load of probes to kill gateway. You pylon your main, gateway a main, don't even start a zealot in proxy gateway/sell proxy gateway and keep manner pyloning. Situation 2: He pulls a few probes. You disrupt them while trying to get a single zealot out and building pylon and gateway in your main when you have money. Try and kill a few probes. Situation 3: He goes pylon gateway pylon. You go throw down a fast second gateway so you can kill more probes because you'll have a few seconds of zealot numerical supremacy each round of production which forces him to use probes which makes them very vulnerable. As you do this you build up your main with any spare money and you run zealots round to lengthen it because you're outmining him every second.
You keep applying horror 2 gates to situation 1 and 2 and saying it won't work because you need a 2nd pylon and he'll have more zealots etc and that's simply not the case because it doesn't work like that. You don't just decide what you're going to do BackHo style and let nothing change your mind. There are contexts in which 2 horror gates is an economic opening. The player understands that his zealots will never win outright because the opponent will immediately respond with a second gateway of his own and the nearby probes present a stronger force. But it will do economic damage and it will take a while to be cleaned up. And that combination makes it very easy for the horror gating player to make new gateways in his main.
In conclusion, you need to understand how the context effects the build. Nobody horror 2 gates unless they know what the situation is, why the situation is good for horror 2 gates and how to play it to their advantage. You keep creating artificial situations where it doesn't work but they're just not relevant to anything.
On December 27 2009 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 19:54 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 27 2009 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 19:03 FabledIntegral wrote: Let it be said I don't think many people are arguing so much as that cheese is the bane of Starcraft strategy - it's more to discuss what constitutes a "cheese build."
"Cheese build" is a vague neologism. It's not about discussing what build is a cheese build, it's about deciding what "cheese build" means. Same shit than for bonjwa.
What is the purpose of that?
I get the feeling that before we can discuss further into these kind of things, we need to have a clear cut line on what cheese is and what isn't.
Well, it depends what you like and dislike in starcraft. For some people any kind of strategical playing is cheese and therefore gay.
My argument is that cheese is pejorative. We are discussing what is worthy and what is not in Starcraft and that's it.
Was July's set 1 and 2 against BeSt cheese? For me it was one of the best ZvP serie ever, with a 4 pool in set 1 and the drone drill atack on Troy in set 2.
So before discussing what is cheese and what is not, try to make a honest defintion of cheese. You opened this thread after raging on Shine strategic play, so I guess for you cheese is what is lame and gay in starcraft. Therefore for me, nothing is cheese.
On December 28 2009 01:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 27 2009 23:27 RaptorX wrote: The funny thing is that I would say that around 80-90% of the people here in TL play on ICCup and I get the impression that in ICCup they would nerdrage and cry: "you fucking noob, cheese rusher, i hope you die on cancer because of cheesing" but then here in TL they will come up with: "There is no such thing as cheese only aggressive builds"...
shame on you guys...
I believe that 2gate = aggressive build proxy 2gate anywhere on the map = cheese
For me cheese is that freaking aggressive build that puts you in a great disadvantage if you dont win with it or if the damage you do is not enough to keep you on the game.
I never nerd rage, if you talk about me, and I consider that someone who BBS me succesfully deserves his win more than I do. I haven't played a game without gging perfectly courteously, and especially if I have lost it, for years.
I respect Starcraft too much to claim that some strategies are unlegit. A game with unlegit strategies would be a poor game.
Seriously. You are nerd raging right here. I made this not for shine v stork, but more for jaedong v flash. If you just want to come here and talk about how stupid this is, then just leave.
And proxy 2-gate in opponent's base is very costly. You need at least 2 pylons, since 1 is going to be taken down and 2 gateways. If you lose those, you lose 500 minerals worth of things. If a player plays smart, I'm pretty sure they can lose less than 300~400 worth of stuff, and it could be very damaging. Afterwards, I would be surprise whoever did this have proxy 2-gate have more than a gateway in their base. This feels like an all in since you're going to be losing tons of pylons and 2 gateways. Like how is proxy 2-gate any different from this?
If the opponent is attacking your pylon and it's going down you don't decide to add a second gateway. That'd be retarded, he's already doing economic damage to himself by attacking it with probes. Sigh. I don't understand how you're not getting this but I'll try and explaining it again. What you do is influenced by the context.
So, returning to the horror gates scenario. If you're horror gating in his base and he realises it's an economic opening and doesn't panic and just ignores it you can go for a fast second gate and a battery and fuck his economy that way. If on the other hand he pulls probes and tries to kill it asap you can not even start to build a zealot because he's taking your gateway down, instead you make a pylon in your main faster and have your main gateway up in time to defend your main.
If he's already fucking his economy to make sure the gateways are blocked you don't go allin 2 gateways and lose because then you're fucked. But I shouldn't have to explain this, especially for a 3rd time. If he's fucking his economy to block you you've already done your damage. You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it and then you kill a load of probes before he cleans it up and then you're ahead.
If you actually played PvP you'd understand. You keep presenting these retarded examples like "if Stork did his Plasma build on a map that wasn't Plasma" or "if a player decided to go allin horror gates against a player who was clearly countering horror gates" then it'd be cheesey. Nobody is doing that. There is a viable situation for 2 gate horror gates. It's when you open 1 gate horror gates and the guy goes pylon gateway pylon without reacting.
Did I even mention stork on plasma on the last post? I think you're just hallucinating things.
"You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it and then you kill a load of probes before he cleans it up and then you're ahead."
So what happens if you don't kill tons of probes? Then won't you be behind after this build? Sure if he pulls probes then he is getting fcked over in the economy, but look at it this way. He probably won't pull probes to attack the pylon, unless you built a gateway. Now you just spend 250 minerals there. While he is killing the pylon, you have two options. One to build another pylon or just let the gateway go down. Before your first pylon dies, you already should have your gateway and a zealot halfway done. Now if you build another pylon, then you are spending another 100 minerals and if your opponent's control is good, they are most likely only going to lose 1 probes before your zealot dies. Sure by the time you get back you will have the zealot there to defend, but at what cost? You lost your gateways, and you might have the slight economical advantage, but you will most likely lose in tech, unless you gas steal, but then you are wasting even more mineral in this.
I often mention that he can counter attack, but you said no because there is a zealot there already. But in most cases, he will make 2 gates and have at least 3 zealots left over, you at most will have one gateway and 2 zealots. After some micro battle on the ramp, he might be able to push up with the superior forces. You're going to also need to build pylons to keep up with the zealot production assuming you powered probes to get the econ advantage, so if you can make a shield battery I would be surprised. With the superior gateway count and zealot count to begin with, the chances of him being able to come into your main is quite high.
This build is just too prone to counter attack in my opinion. You need to put in a lot of minerals to keep him in his base or else he will just counter attack you when you are at the most vulnerable stage of the attack.
And you don't kill gateway with probe, you kill the pylon, delay the zealot, and get your own zealot out and just attack the pylons to just delay them. This way your going to lose the least amount of mining time.
We are talking of horror 2-gate (tell me if i'm calling it wrong), not one, so this is putting more into the attack then just 1gating them.
There might be economic damage, but at what costs? Why don't people do this with proxy 2-gate? Why does it have to be in their base? I just think that this is too prone to a counter attack.
"You keep creating artificial situations where it doesn't work but they're just not relevant to anything." I'm just saying what might happen after this build ends. You are just saying, oh he will have enough to defend, he will have enough to defend, and I'm just saying he will not have enough to defend. We're getting nowhere like this. If you have an example of where this build fails not on plasma, then please show it to me.
And you are basically saying you must kill tons of probes for this to be effective. Doesn't that apply to all cheese? If you don't do enough damage after a cheese, then you'll most likely lose!
On December 28 2009 08:24 MuffinDude wrote: "You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it and then you kill a load of probes before he cleans it up and then you're ahead."
So what happens if you don't kill tons of probes? Then won't you be behind after this build?
You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it.
What happens if you fast expand and don't mine a load of minerals? What happens if you dt rush and don't make dts?
You 2 gate in the context that it will work. You kill some probes. That's how it works.
The difference between this and a proxy gateway is that your zealots are out at the same time as his. You don't get outnumbered. Your zealots don't get trapped. You have a manner pylon there too. The travel time for a proxy gate, even if it's only 10 seconds or so, is huge. You don't want that.
The numbers work out. Go play this on icc for a while. At anything below B they'll overreact to horror gates and pick one of the first two situations and that'll be your economic damage. But once you start meeting good players they understand you're not trying to rush them, you're trying to outproduce probes. Once you're up at B you'll find someone calls your bluff about 1/3 the time and you have to make a second gateway to punish them. Otherwise you've hurt your economy for nothing. I used this build on icc a lot last season at high levels. If you understand how to use it it works. I recommend you try it. You're right that we've reached a point where I'm saying that it works out and you have enough to defend and you're saying it doesn't but the difference is, I've done it on icc countless times. You have enough to defend.
On December 28 2009 08:24 MuffinDude wrote: "You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it and then you kill a load of probes before he cleans it up and then you're ahead."
So what happens if you don't kill tons of probes? Then won't you be behind after this build?
You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it.
What happens if you fast expand and don't mine a load of minerals? What happens if you dt rush and don't make dts?
You 2 gate in the context that it will work. You kill some probes. That's how it works.
You retard. Making dt and pulling probes to ur nat is something that you control, but killing how many probes is not what you control. If you can control how many probes you can kill with a zealot, then why not control how many things you kill with your initial probe? What you say is equivalent to when I say: I attack with my scouting probe on the context that it works. I kill their base. That's how it works.
The numbers work out. Go play this on icc for a while. At anything below B they'll overreact to horror gates and pick one of the first two situations and that'll be your economic damage. But once you start meeting good players they understand you're not trying to rush them, you're trying to outproduce probes. Once you're up at B you'll find someone calls your bluff about 1/3 the time and you have to make a second gateway to punish them. Otherwise you've hurt your economy for nothing.
If its only reliable on people under B, then its not very reliable is it? On higher ranks, I think you'll probably end up losing most of your games if you pull this stuff all the time. I'll take your word for it that it works on the lower level, but do you have any progaming examples? The only one who actually use this build is stork and it was rather map specific. There must be a reason why progamers never use it.
On December 28 2009 08:24 MuffinDude wrote: "You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it and then you kill a load of probes before he cleans it up and then you're ahead."
So what happens if you don't kill tons of probes? Then won't you be behind after this build?
You 2 gate in the context that he is vulnerable to it.
What happens if you fast expand and don't mine a load of minerals? What happens if you dt rush and don't make dts?
You 2 gate in the context that it will work. You kill some probes. That's how it works.
You retard. Making dt and pulling probes to ur nat is something that you control, but killing how many probes is not what you control. If you can control how many probes you can kill with a zealot, then why not control how many things you kill with your initial probe? What you say is equivalent to when I say: I attack with my scouting probe on the context that it works. I kill their base. That's how it works.
Maybe you can't control how many probes you kill but give me a zealot and a probe in their base and an opponent with equal quality micro to me and I can. I'm assuming an outcome based on the competence of the player. I wasn't aware that assumption didn't apply to you.
The numbers work out. Go play this on icc for a while. At anything below B they'll overreact to horror gates and pick one of the first two situations and that'll be your economic damage. But once you start meeting good players they understand you're not trying to rush them, you're trying to outproduce probes. Once you're up at B you'll find someone calls your bluff about 1/3 the time and you have to make a second gateway to punish them. Otherwise you've hurt your economy for nothing.
If its only reliable on people under B, then its not very reliable is it? On higher ranks, I think you'll probably end up losing most of your games if you pull this stuff all the time.
No, you didn't understand... again. Read my post again. Against players under B you don't get into the situation because they're stupid and they see one horror gate and panic and fuck their own economy over. And if they're going to do your work for you you don't have to invest in a second gateway. The context for the second gateway is when players who know how to play at B call your bluff.
EPT
