|
On December 28 2009 08:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 08:40 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 08:35 KwarK wrote: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.
And I wasn't aware of that the assumption on equal footing players you might only get like 2~3 probes with your initial zealot, which isn't enough to put them significantly behind. In fact you might end up behind after losing 2 pylons and 2 gateway.
I'm a D rank, and I know I lose a lot of credibility when I say that, but we're talking about horror 2-gate here. That is the topic of discussion, not one gateway.
|
United States43627 Posts
On December 28 2009 08:46 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 08:43 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 08:40 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 08:35 KwarK wrote: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. And I wasn't aware of that the assumption on equal footing players you might only get like 2~3 probes with your initial zealot, which isn't enough to put them significantly behind. In fact you might end up behind after losing 2 pylons and 2 gateway.
I kill probes with my second zealot too.
And I'm talking about a situation which you'll never see because players at D rank just don't understand what a horror gate is meant to do.
At D rank you put a horror gate in their base and they go "ZOMG PROXY GATE" and destroy their economy killing it. You don't even start a zealot in your proxy gate because there's no point, they'll kill it before it's done. And then they'll kill the manner pylon and think they're ahead because they blocked shit and you've got three more probes than them. 2 minutes later you smash them and they just don't understand why they lost.
In that situation you never add a second horror gate because there is absolutely no point. The build has done what it wanted to do the moment they overreact. That is what D players consistantly fail to understand.
You don't actually get to add a second gateway until you play someone smart enough to see a proxy gateway in the middle of their base and think "he's trying to get more probes than me". It's when they go pylon gateway pylon and just match your zealots while microing their probes away and stealing your gas that you'd be in trouble. Sure you kill a probe or two but you don't get an economic advantage because they didn't stop their probe production and you're still behind from sending out your 4th probe.
In that situation you call their bluff. They continue to power their economy so you throw down a second gateway and make them pay. You take a 10 second zealot numerical advantage in each round of production with your faster second gate and you exploit it to disrupt their mining (they have to drill probes away or lose them) and damage their zealots. And you can do that for a very long time before they clear it up. Whenever they pull probes to fight you off you can run your zealots in circles knowing they're losing mining time and the moment their probes to back to mining you go back to hunting them, secure in the knowledge that you have slightly more zealots.
Every second this continues is a second your economy is getting ahead and you're building more hardware in your main base. Eventually they'll get the upper hand by using probes at which point you either sacrifice your zealots to kill a load of probes or simply bring them home if you've already got a game winning advantage.
But as I said, you'll never actually see the situation where you have to call their bluff because at D players don't understand how to read the cards, let alone bluff. The horror 2 gate doesn't apply to people like you. Just accept it exists.
|
On December 28 2009 08:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 08:46 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 08:43 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 08:40 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 08:35 KwarK wrote: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. And I wasn't aware of that the assumption on equal footing players you might only get like 2~3 probes with your initial zealot, which isn't enough to put them significantly behind. In fact you might end up behind after losing 2 pylons and 2 gateway. I kill probes with my second zealot too. And I'm talking about a situation which you'll never see because players at D rank just don't understand what a horror gate is meant to do. At D rank you put a horror gate in their base and they go "ZOMG PROXY GATE" and destroy their economy killing it. You don't even start a zealot in your proxy gate because there's no point, they'll kill it before it's done. And then they'll kill the manner pylon and think they're ahead because they blocked shit and you've got three more probes than them. 2 minutes later you smash them and they just don't understand why they lost. In that situation you never add a second horror gate because there is absolutely no point. The build has done what it wanted to do the moment they overreact. That is what D players consistantly fail to understand. You don't actually get to add a second gateway until you play someone smart enough to see a proxy gateway in the middle of their base and think "he's trying to get more probes than me". It's when they go pylon gateway pylon and just match your zealots while microing their probes away and stealing your gas that you'd be in trouble. Sure you kill a probe or two but you don't get an economic advantage because they didn't stop their probe production and you're still behind from sending out your 4th probe. In that situation you call their bluff. They continue to power their economy so you throw down a second gateway and make them pay. You take a 10 second zealot numerical advantage in each round of production with your faster second gate and you exploit it to disrupt their mining (they have to drill probes away or lose them) and damage their zealots. And you can do that for a very long time before they clear it up. Whenever they pull probes to fight you off you can run your zealots in circles knowing they're losing mining time and the moment their probes to back to mining you go back to hunting them, secure in the knowledge that you have slightly more zealots. Every second this continues is a second your economy is getting ahead and you're building more hardware in your main base. Eventually they'll get the upper hand by using probes at which point you either sacrifice your zealots to kill a load of probes or simply bring them home if you've already got a game winning advantage. But as I said, you'll never actually see the situation where you have to call their bluff because at D players don't understand how to read the cards, let alone bluff. The horror 2 gate doesn't apply to people like you. Just accept it exists.
Yes I know that is true, but your second zealot will get even less kills because now they will have more zealot to fight with.
Exactly explain to me the timing of your second gateway. What I'm thinking is this 1 pylon -> 1 gateway -> he pull probes to kill 1st pylon -> 1 pylon -> 1 zealot -> 2~3 probe kill -> while killing 2nd gateway -> zealot dies -> he puts down second gateway -> now you're behind a zealot and can produce zealots only 10 seconds faster from the second gateway.
And why don't progamers use this more than like twice if its such a viable strategy? And one of them was on a player who is significantly worse than the other? And the other one was very map specific?
I might be D, but I'm mostly D because my control isn't good enough. I know what to do, but just can't execute it well. Like I run into mines all the time and stuff.
|
United States43627 Posts
On December 28 2009 08:49 MuffinDude wrote:
he pull probes to kill 1st pylon
2nd gateway
HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS!?!? If he's pulling probes you don't make a second gateway. I've explained this very clearly in every single post I've made here.
|
On December 28 2009 09:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 08:49 MuffinDude wrote:
he pull probes to kill 1st pylon
2nd gateway HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS!?!? If he's pulling probes you don't make a second gateway. I've explained this very clearly in every single post I've made here.
And I think I made this clear in every single post here that this is a proxy 2 gate in their base discussion, so that second gateway must go up. -_-
|
United States43627 Posts
On December 28 2009 09:12 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:10 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 08:49 MuffinDude wrote:
he pull probes to kill 1st pylon
2nd gateway HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS!?!? If he's pulling probes you don't make a second gateway. I've explained this very clearly in every single post I've made here. And I think I made this clear in every single post here that this is a proxy 2 gate in their base discussion, so that second gateway must go up. -_-
Are you Backho by any chance? Must go up?
|
On December 28 2009 09:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:12 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:10 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 08:49 MuffinDude wrote:
he pull probes to kill 1st pylon
2nd gateway HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS!?!? If he's pulling probes you don't make a second gateway. I've explained this very clearly in every single post I've made here. And I think I made this clear in every single post here that this is a proxy 2 gate in their base discussion, so that second gateway must go up. -_- Are you Backho by any chance? Must go up?
I'm going to repeat my post. Please read.
And I think I made this clear in every single post here that this is a proxy 2 gate in their base discussion, so that second gateway must go up.
Example game: Bisu v pokju
Notice how bisu made the 2nd gateway?
|
United States43627 Posts
On December 28 2009 09:14 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:13 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:12 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:10 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 08:49 MuffinDude wrote:
he pull probes to kill 1st pylon
2nd gateway HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS!?!? If he's pulling probes you don't make a second gateway. I've explained this very clearly in every single post I've made here. And I think I made this clear in every single post here that this is a proxy 2 gate in their base discussion, so that second gateway must go up. -_- Are you Backho by any chance? Must go up? I'm going to repeat my post. Please read. And I think I made this clear in every single post here that this is a proxy 2 gate in their base discussion, so that second gateway must go up. Example game: Bisu v pokju
What players do is related to what their opponent does. This is a basic concept which you must understand. You are presenting a scenario in which a 2 gate wouldn't work and telling me it wouldn't work. What I am attempting to explain to you is that a good player can recognise when a 2 gate wouldn't work and decide not to do it.
|
United States43627 Posts
2 gate in the right context is an economic build.
2 gate in the wrong context isn't a build at all.
|
On December 28 2009 09:19 KwarK wrote:
2 gate in the right context is an economic build.
2 gate in the wrong context isn't a build at all.
Then please enlighten me why progamers don't use this build more often? Even when they're playing against weaker players. There must be a reason to this, like high risk low chance to succeed move.
But I can assure you that bisu was planning on going 2 gate to begin with against pokju. And why aren't all proxy 2 gate counted as the same thing?
|
United States43627 Posts
On December 28 2009 09:24 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:19 KwarK wrote:
2 gate in the right context is an economic build.
2 gate in the wrong context isn't a build at all. But I can assure you that bisu was planning on going 2 gate to begin with against pokju. And why aren't all proxy 2 gate counted as the same thing?
You can assure me of Bisu's intentions? Cool?
What if Pokju had pulled a bunch of probes to take down the pylons? Would he still have decided to add to his investment in Pokju's base despite his economic advantage? Because I thought Bisu was good and would therefore make smart choices. But you assure me that Bisu doesn't make choices, he just decides to do shit and hope it works out.
|
On December 28 2009 09:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:24 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:19 KwarK wrote:
2 gate in the right context is an economic build.
2 gate in the wrong context isn't a build at all. But I can assure you that bisu was planning on going 2 gate to begin with against pokju. And why aren't all proxy 2 gate counted as the same thing? You can assure me of Bisu's intentions? Cool? What if Pokju had pulled a bunch of probes to take down the pylons? Would he still have decided to add to his investment in Pokju's base despite his economic advantage? Because I thought Bisu was good and would therefore make smart choices. But you assure me that Bisu doesn't make choices, he just decides to do shit and hope it works out.
Well its a combination of he does these kind of moves a lot to lesser players and his confidence in himself, but do you have explanation as to why progamers don't use this often?
|
On December 28 2009 02:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And I'd say the same thing back to you that you're retarded for failing to understand why people rage when they lose to those types of builds. It's different when you're a progamer - a win actually means something. However, when casual players are playing, it just takes away from the gaming experience for many people. Whether you disagree with that is irrelevant.
And it does the same for spectators, the reason spectators rage about progamers cheesing is because it takes away from the spectator value of the esport - which is something that is very important in itself to the success of the sport. If there aren't a large pool of viewers then who is going to sponsor the teams?
No, I'm not saying that the progamers should play to please the spectators, but rather to win. However, it's understandable when people criticize the people who cheese simply because they are potentially knocking out a better player that produces better quality games.
|
United States43627 Posts
On December 28 2009 09:31 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:29 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:24 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:19 KwarK wrote:
2 gate in the right context is an economic build.
2 gate in the wrong context isn't a build at all. But I can assure you that bisu was planning on going 2 gate to begin with against pokju. And why aren't all proxy 2 gate counted as the same thing? You can assure me of Bisu's intentions? Cool? What if Pokju had pulled a bunch of probes to take down the pylons? Would he still have decided to add to his investment in Pokju's base despite his economic advantage? Because I thought Bisu was good and would therefore make smart choices. But you assure me that Bisu doesn't make choices, he just decides to do shit and hope it works out. Well its a combination of he does these kind of moves a lot to lesser players and his confidence in himself, but do you have explanation as to why progamers don't use this often?
Because progamers have optimised counters to it. It works because people overreact or underreact. If they react optimally, hurting their economy just the right amount to minimise damage, then it leaves players about even. There are simply better ways to get an edge. They don't want to risk their game on a micro situation when they're more confident in the rest of their game.
It's the same reason you rarely see goon breaks vs tanks PvT, even if they have the units and the opportunity to do it.
|
On December 28 2009 09:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:31 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:29 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:24 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:19 KwarK wrote:
2 gate in the right context is an economic build.
2 gate in the wrong context isn't a build at all. But I can assure you that bisu was planning on going 2 gate to begin with against pokju. And why aren't all proxy 2 gate counted as the same thing? You can assure me of Bisu's intentions? Cool? What if Pokju had pulled a bunch of probes to take down the pylons? Would he still have decided to add to his investment in Pokju's base despite his economic advantage? Because I thought Bisu was good and would therefore make smart choices. But you assure me that Bisu doesn't make choices, he just decides to do shit and hope it works out. Well its a combination of he does these kind of moves a lot to lesser players and his confidence in himself, but do you have explanation as to why progamers don't use this often? Because progamers have optimised counters to it. It works because people overreact or underreact. If they react optimally, hurting their economy just the right amount to minimise damage, then it leaves players about even. There are simply better ways to get an edge. They don't want to risk their game on a micro situation when they're more confident in the rest of their game. It's the same reason you rarely see goon breaks vs tanks PvT, even if they have the units and the opportunity to do it.
That sounds a lot like cheese. A high risk build that often wins or lose you the game, and I'm still not exactly convinced that it failing would not cause you to fall behind. If this is the case, progamers can do it every once in a while, not just twice. Its used too rarely for it to be an effective build at all, any build that is effective that has the potential to get you ahead more than half the time has been used more than just twice.
|
United States43627 Posts
On December 28 2009 09:39 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:37 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:31 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:29 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:24 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:19 KwarK wrote:
2 gate in the right context is an economic build.
2 gate in the wrong context isn't a build at all. But I can assure you that bisu was planning on going 2 gate to begin with against pokju. And why aren't all proxy 2 gate counted as the same thing? You can assure me of Bisu's intentions? Cool? What if Pokju had pulled a bunch of probes to take down the pylons? Would he still have decided to add to his investment in Pokju's base despite his economic advantage? Because I thought Bisu was good and would therefore make smart choices. But you assure me that Bisu doesn't make choices, he just decides to do shit and hope it works out. Well its a combination of he does these kind of moves a lot to lesser players and his confidence in himself, but do you have explanation as to why progamers don't use this often? Because progamers have optimised counters to it. It works because people overreact or underreact. If they react optimally, hurting their economy just the right amount to minimise damage, then it leaves players about even. There are simply better ways to get an edge. They don't want to risk their game on a micro situation when they're more confident in the rest of their game. It's the same reason you rarely see goon breaks vs tanks PvT, even if they have the units and the opportunity to do it. That sounds a lot like cheese. A high risk build that often wins or lose you the game, and I'm still not exactly convinced that it failing would not cause you to fall behind. If this is the case, progamers can do it every once in a while, not just twice.
You know what? You're D rank. You don't understand the build or what it's trying to do but that's okay, you don't have to. When you say you're still not convinced I'm not going to think that's a problem with either the build or my explanation of it.
|
On December 28 2009 09:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:37 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:31 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:29 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:24 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:19 KwarK wrote:
2 gate in the right context is an economic build.
2 gate in the wrong context isn't a build at all. But I can assure you that bisu was planning on going 2 gate to begin with against pokju. And why aren't all proxy 2 gate counted as the same thing? You can assure me of Bisu's intentions? Cool? What if Pokju had pulled a bunch of probes to take down the pylons? Would he still have decided to add to his investment in Pokju's base despite his economic advantage? Because I thought Bisu was good and would therefore make smart choices. But you assure me that Bisu doesn't make choices, he just decides to do shit and hope it works out. Well its a combination of he does these kind of moves a lot to lesser players and his confidence in himself, but do you have explanation as to why progamers don't use this often? Because progamers have optimised counters to it. It works because people overreact or underreact. If they react optimally, hurting their economy just the right amount to minimise damage, then it leaves players about even. There are simply better ways to get an edge. They don't want to risk their game on a micro situation when they're more confident in the rest of their game. It's the same reason you rarely see goon breaks vs tanks PvT, even if they have the units and the opportunity to do it. That sounds a lot like cheese. A high risk build that often wins or lose you the game, and I'm still not exactly convinced that it failing would not cause you to fall behind. If this is the case, progamers can do it every once in a while, not just twice. You know what? You're D rank. You don't understand the build or what it's trying to do but that's okay, you don't have to. When you say you're still not convinced I'm not going to think that's a problem with either the build or my explanation of it.
Oh so as a B rank person you're saying you are better than bisu or stork? You probably don't know the exact counter to this build.
|
United States43627 Posts
I explained it to you over and over. You didn't get it. That's okay. Not everybody does. Move on.
|
On December 28 2009 09:48 KwarK wrote:
I explained it to you over and over. You didn't get it. That's okay. Not everybody does. Move on.
So you're telling me that you thought of all possible counter to this move? You're amazing!
You explained it over and over. I understood it, but I'm saying you will be behind if this fails.
|
United States43627 Posts
Yeah, right next to where I said I was better than Bisu or Stork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
