|
On December 28 2009 09:51 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, right next to where I said I was better than Bisu or Stork.
You seem to bring in rank to this matter. You know higher rank doesn't mean you understand the game better, but maybe you just can perform better? For example in the 100 meter dash, a scientist can understand every little bits and pieces of how to maximize the effectiveness of your muscles, but he or she will probably be never be faster than Usain Bolt.
If this fails. You can lose up to 2 pylons (possibly 3), 2 gateways, 4~6 zealots. So that is about 900~1200 mineral. You might be able to kill up to 4~10 probes, 2~3 zealots, and cost about 200~300 min worth of mining time. That is about 600~1100 minerals. So at best, you can get about 200 mineral worth of advantage, higher tech, and more probe count. But if it fails you can lose up to 600 minerals, putting you behind by quite a bit this early in the game. That is a high risk build, which is why I'm putting it as cheese.
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 28 2009 09:58 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:51 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, right next to where I said I was better than Bisu or Stork. You seem to bring in rank to this matter. You know higher rank doesn't mean you understand the game better, but maybe you just can perform better? For example in the 100 meter dash, a scientist can understand every little bits and pieces of how to maximize the effectiveness of your muscles, but he or she will probably be never be faster than Usain Bolt. If this fails. You can lose up to 2 pylons (possibly 3), 2 gateways, 4~6 zealots. So that is about 900~1200 mineral. You might be able to kill up to 4~10 probes, 2~3 zealots, and cost about 200~300 min worth of mining time. That is about 600~1100 minerals. So at best, you can get about 200 mineral worth of advantage, higher tech, and more probe count. But if it fails you can lose up to 600 minerals, putting you behind by quite a bit this early in the game. That is a high risk build, which is why I'm putting it as cheese.
Your maths doesn't accurately reflect the situation, especially your 200-300 of mining time. You think 4 probes lost costs him 200 minerals and 10 probes lost costs him 300 minerals?
|
On December 28 2009 10:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 09:58 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:51 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, right next to where I said I was better than Bisu or Stork. You seem to bring in rank to this matter. You know higher rank doesn't mean you understand the game better, but maybe you just can perform better? For example in the 100 meter dash, a scientist can understand every little bits and pieces of how to maximize the effectiveness of your muscles, but he or she will probably be never be faster than Usain Bolt. If this fails. You can lose up to 2 pylons (possibly 3), 2 gateways, 4~6 zealots. So that is about 900~1200 mineral. You might be able to kill up to 4~10 probes, 2~3 zealots, and cost about 200~300 min worth of mining time. That is about 600~1100 minerals. So at best, you can get about 200 mineral worth of advantage, higher tech, and more probe count. But if it fails you can lose up to 600 minerals, putting you behind by quite a bit this early in the game. That is a high risk build, which is why I'm putting it as cheese. Your maths doesn't accurately reflect the situation, especially your 200-300 of mining time. You think 4 probes lost costs him 200 minerals and 10 probes lost costs him 300 minerals?
200~300 mining time when you have to probe drill and run probes away. The 4~10 probes comes into effect later, that's why I wrote that you will be ahead in probe count but at what costs?
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 28 2009 10:06 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 10:03 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:58 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:51 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, right next to where I said I was better than Bisu or Stork. You seem to bring in rank to this matter. You know higher rank doesn't mean you understand the game better, but maybe you just can perform better? For example in the 100 meter dash, a scientist can understand every little bits and pieces of how to maximize the effectiveness of your muscles, but he or she will probably be never be faster than Usain Bolt. If this fails. You can lose up to 2 pylons (possibly 3), 2 gateways, 4~6 zealots. So that is about 900~1200 mineral. You might be able to kill up to 4~10 probes, 2~3 zealots, and cost about 200~300 min worth of mining time. That is about 600~1100 minerals. So at best, you can get about 200 mineral worth of advantage, higher tech, and more probe count. But if it fails you can lose up to 600 minerals, putting you behind by quite a bit this early in the game. That is a high risk build, which is why I'm putting it as cheese. Your maths doesn't accurately reflect the situation, especially your 200-300 of mining time. You think 4 probes lost costs him 200 minerals and 10 probes lost costs him 300 minerals? 200~300 mining time when you have to probe drill and run probes away. The 4~10 probes comes into effect later, that's why I wrote that you will be ahead in probe count but at what costs?
Also the situation when you make the 2 gates is when he's not already gone 2 gate himself (that's similar to him attacking shit with probes, it gives you a tech advantage rather than an economic advantage so you just take that advantage and go with it rather than 2 gate) which means your zealots will be out first which in turn means you will always have a zealot advantage (I believe I've mentioned this about 6 times already). Your losing 4-6 zealots (also a very low number, why would I lose control of my gateways after only 4 zealots? What do you think is attacking them when his zealots are busy mirroring mine?) for 2-3 kills is inaccuate.
It is extremely evident to me that you don't understand this build. Maybe you can't understand it. Maybe you don't have the micro or multitasking to manage it. But there is no way that if you have even zealot numbers (which you will) inside his base (where they are) he will be attacking your gateways. That much should be extremely obvious and yet does not occur to you. I'm trying to explain the concept of rain to a fish and I'm bored.
|
On December 28 2009 10:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 10:06 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:03 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 09:58 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 09:51 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, right next to where I said I was better than Bisu or Stork. You seem to bring in rank to this matter. You know higher rank doesn't mean you understand the game better, but maybe you just can perform better? For example in the 100 meter dash, a scientist can understand every little bits and pieces of how to maximize the effectiveness of your muscles, but he or she will probably be never be faster than Usain Bolt. If this fails. You can lose up to 2 pylons (possibly 3), 2 gateways, 4~6 zealots. So that is about 900~1200 mineral. You might be able to kill up to 4~10 probes, 2~3 zealots, and cost about 200~300 min worth of mining time. That is about 600~1100 minerals. So at best, you can get about 200 mineral worth of advantage, higher tech, and more probe count. But if it fails you can lose up to 600 minerals, putting you behind by quite a bit this early in the game. That is a high risk build, which is why I'm putting it as cheese. Your maths doesn't accurately reflect the situation, especially your 200-300 of mining time. You think 4 probes lost costs him 200 minerals and 10 probes lost costs him 300 minerals? 200~300 mining time when you have to probe drill and run probes away. The 4~10 probes comes into effect later, that's why I wrote that you will be ahead in probe count but at what costs? Also the situation when you make the 2 gates is when he's not already gone 2 gate himself (that's similar to him attacking shit with probes, it gives you a tech advantage rather than an economic advantage so you just take that advantage and go with it rather than 2 gate) which means your zealots will be out first which in turn means you will always have a zealot advantage (I believe I've mentioned this about 6 times already). Your losing 4-6 zealots (also a very low number, why would I lose control of my gateways after only 4 zealots? What do you think is attacking them when his zealots are busy mirroring mine?) for 2-3 kills is inaccuate. It is extremely evident to me that you don't understand this build. Maybe you can't understand it. Maybe you don't have the micro or multitasking to manage it. But there is no way that if you have even zealot numbers (which you will) inside his base (where they are) he will be attacking your gateways. That much should be extremely obvious and yet does not occur to you. I'm trying to explain the concept of rain to a fish and I'm bored.
Ok fine? You fine with having more zealot produced and losing a lot more, because stork did kill only about 8~10 probes in his game v best before it was driven away. If you include more zealots than stork would of lost more than just 900~1200 mineral. Maybe you don't understand that this will put you far behind if it fails. Its annoying because you're just assuming that this will work 100% of the time. From your explanations, its always it will work it will work it will work. Why don't you stop blabbering that it will work and think about what will happen if it doesn't work.
|
I guess Kwark is ashamed of cheesing. He does go so far as to deliberately argue a losing argument with a D(?) ranked player just because of pride? Either that or a D rank player knows better than him.
|
United States43964 Posts
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case.
|
On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case.
The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you're only one person.
And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough.
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough.
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.
|
On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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.
Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese.
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 28 2009 10:50 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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. Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese.
When I said I use this at B rank I didn't mean I use this at B rank while playing D ranks. I mean I use this against competent players. Just to clear that up. Also gateways are cheap. Protoss doesn't need to devote worker time to making them, you're only losing their mineral value and the time it takes to make them. I think you overestimate how bad that is. On destination you can slow them for ages on a ramp. On HBR if you're really concerned you can just wall the choke. On Peaks you can block with one zealot. It really doesn't take that long for an extra probe to pay for itself, or a dead probe to punish.
|
On December 28 2009 10:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 10:50 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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. Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese. When I said I use this at B rank I didn't mean I use this at B rank while playing D ranks. I mean I use this against competent players. Just to clear that up. Also gateways are cheap. Protoss doesn't need to devote worker time to making them, you're only losing their mineral value and the time it takes to make them. I think you overestimate how bad that is. On destination you can slow them for ages on a ramp. On HBR if you're really concerned you can just wall the choke. On Peaks you can block with one zealot. It really doesn't take that long for an extra probe to pay for itself, or a dead probe to punish.
This is all true, but when you lose your pylons and gateways, think about this, do you even have enough food to make enough zealots to defend? You've been powering probes while you harass them to get the economic advantage and you just lost your pylons. If you say that you built more than one pylon in your base, then your attack would end really early because you will run out of pylons powering the gateway, and as a result it might of not done as much damage as you would of liked. Then while your supply blocked, he can power probes while attack you at the same time while you're waiting for the pylons to warp in. Its a pretty big risk to take.
|
On December 28 2009 11:01 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 10:54 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:50 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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. Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese. When I said I use this at B rank I didn't mean I use this at B rank while playing D ranks. I mean I use this against competent players. Just to clear that up. Also gateways are cheap. Protoss doesn't need to devote worker time to making them, you're only losing their mineral value and the time it takes to make them. I think you overestimate how bad that is. On destination you can slow them for ages on a ramp. On HBR if you're really concerned you can just wall the choke. On Peaks you can block with one zealot. It really doesn't take that long for an extra probe to pay for itself, or a dead probe to punish. This is all true, but when you lose your pylons and gateways, think about this, do you even have enough food to make enough zealots to defend? You've been powering probes while you harass them to get the economic advantage and you just lost your pylons. If you say that you built more than one pylon in your base, then your attack would end really early because you will run out of pylons powering the gateway, and as a result it might of not done as much damage as you would of liked. Then while your supply blocked, he can power probes while attack you at the same time while you're waiting for the pylons to warp in. Its a pretty big risk to take.
I don't know about everything you said and how true it may be but the conclusion you came to is the one I believe kwark alluded to a few posts earlier....
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 28 2009 11:01 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 10:54 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:50 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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. Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese. When I said I use this at B rank I didn't mean I use this at B rank while playing D ranks. I mean I use this against competent players. Just to clear that up. Also gateways are cheap. Protoss doesn't need to devote worker time to making them, you're only losing their mineral value and the time it takes to make them. I think you overestimate how bad that is. On destination you can slow them for ages on a ramp. On HBR if you're really concerned you can just wall the choke. On Peaks you can block with one zealot. It really doesn't take that long for an extra probe to pay for itself, or a dead probe to punish. This is all true, but when you lose your pylons and gateways, think about this, do you even have enough food to make enough zealots to defend? You've been powering probes while you harass them to get the economic advantage and you just lost your pylons. If you say that you built more than one pylon in your base, then your attack would end really early because you will run out of pylons powering the gateway, and as a result it might of not done as much damage as you would of liked. Then while your supply blocked, he can power probes while attack you at the same time while you're waiting for the pylons to warp in. Its a pretty big risk to take.
When managing psi I take into account pylons I expect to lose and rebuild them preemptively. This is because I am a good player. I don't get psi blocked early game.
What you're trying to say is that if the player doing it is a noob and makes a bunch of stupid mistakes then it might not work. I really don't see how that's a fair criticism of any build. I think we're again going back to you simply not having the level to understand things like seeing your pylon is under attack and making a new one before you get told to.
|
On December 28 2009 11:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 11:01 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:54 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:50 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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. Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese. When I said I use this at B rank I didn't mean I use this at B rank while playing D ranks. I mean I use this against competent players. Just to clear that up. Also gateways are cheap. Protoss doesn't need to devote worker time to making them, you're only losing their mineral value and the time it takes to make them. I think you overestimate how bad that is. On destination you can slow them for ages on a ramp. On HBR if you're really concerned you can just wall the choke. On Peaks you can block with one zealot. It really doesn't take that long for an extra probe to pay for itself, or a dead probe to punish. This is all true, but when you lose your pylons and gateways, think about this, do you even have enough food to make enough zealots to defend? You've been powering probes while you harass them to get the economic advantage and you just lost your pylons. If you say that you built more than one pylon in your base, then your attack would end really early because you will run out of pylons powering the gateway, and as a result it might of not done as much damage as you would of liked. Then while your supply blocked, he can power probes while attack you at the same time while you're waiting for the pylons to warp in. Its a pretty big risk to take. When managing psi I take into account pylons I expect to lose and rebuild them preemptively. This is because I am a good player. I don't get psi blocked early game. What you're trying to say is that if the player doing it is a noob and makes a bunch of stupid mistakes then it might not work. I really don't see how that's a fair criticism of any build. I think we're again going back to you simply not having the level to understand things like seeing your pylon is under attack and making a new one before you get told to.
I believe this is a legitimate concern as you are losing pylons and have to spend 100 more minerals remaking it. Sure you rebuild them preemptively, but can an economy from an early game aggression build like this build actually keep up with all the probe/gateway/pylon/zealot production? You're bound to hit max psi couple times or if you don't, then you'll probably end up with less zealots or something.
Now while he uses minerals to remake probes, you have to use minerals to remake pylons, so the damage of him losing probes gets evened out with the pylons you lose.
|
So too summarize kwarks opinion's on the matter I think were basically that its "risky" in the sense that the probability of screwing things up is higher then playing normally. Hence better players generally wouldn't use it because it would be "safer" to play standard and the worse player wouldn't use it because his micro would be worse. Though I suppose there are exceptions this is basically what it boils down to?
|
On December 28 2009 11:21 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 11:15 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 11:01 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:54 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:50 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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. Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese. When I said I use this at B rank I didn't mean I use this at B rank while playing D ranks. I mean I use this against competent players. Just to clear that up. Also gateways are cheap. Protoss doesn't need to devote worker time to making them, you're only losing their mineral value and the time it takes to make them. I think you overestimate how bad that is. On destination you can slow them for ages on a ramp. On HBR if you're really concerned you can just wall the choke. On Peaks you can block with one zealot. It really doesn't take that long for an extra probe to pay for itself, or a dead probe to punish. This is all true, but when you lose your pylons and gateways, think about this, do you even have enough food to make enough zealots to defend? You've been powering probes while you harass them to get the economic advantage and you just lost your pylons. If you say that you built more than one pylon in your base, then your attack would end really early because you will run out of pylons powering the gateway, and as a result it might of not done as much damage as you would of liked. Then while your supply blocked, he can power probes while attack you at the same time while you're waiting for the pylons to warp in. Its a pretty big risk to take. When managing psi I take into account pylons I expect to lose and rebuild them preemptively. This is because I am a good player. I don't get psi blocked early game. What you're trying to say is that if the player doing it is a noob and makes a bunch of stupid mistakes then it might not work. I really don't see how that's a fair criticism of any build. I think we're again going back to you simply not having the level to understand things like seeing your pylon is under attack and making a new one before you get told to. I believe this is a legitimate concern as you are losing pylons and have to spend 100 more minerals remaking it. Sure you rebuild them preemptively, but can an economy from an early game aggression build like this build actually keep up with all the probe/gateway/pylon/zealot production? You're bound to hit max psi couple times or if you don't, then you'll probably end up with less zealots or something.
Muffin this is pure speculation however, kwark is telling you from the perspective of a b rank player that it can work. So unless you have some hard evidence for your case I'm not sure if you can really say these type of things. If you really want to go this indepth this conversation should be moved to analysis of some hard evidence such as replays maybe?
|
On December 28 2009 11:24 ToN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 11:21 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 11:15 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 11:01 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:54 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:50 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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. Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese. When I said I use this at B rank I didn't mean I use this at B rank while playing D ranks. I mean I use this against competent players. Just to clear that up. Also gateways are cheap. Protoss doesn't need to devote worker time to making them, you're only losing their mineral value and the time it takes to make them. I think you overestimate how bad that is. On destination you can slow them for ages on a ramp. On HBR if you're really concerned you can just wall the choke. On Peaks you can block with one zealot. It really doesn't take that long for an extra probe to pay for itself, or a dead probe to punish. This is all true, but when you lose your pylons and gateways, think about this, do you even have enough food to make enough zealots to defend? You've been powering probes while you harass them to get the economic advantage and you just lost your pylons. If you say that you built more than one pylon in your base, then your attack would end really early because you will run out of pylons powering the gateway, and as a result it might of not done as much damage as you would of liked. Then while your supply blocked, he can power probes while attack you at the same time while you're waiting for the pylons to warp in. Its a pretty big risk to take. When managing psi I take into account pylons I expect to lose and rebuild them preemptively. This is because I am a good player. I don't get psi blocked early game. What you're trying to say is that if the player doing it is a noob and makes a bunch of stupid mistakes then it might not work. I really don't see how that's a fair criticism of any build. I think we're again going back to you simply not having the level to understand things like seeing your pylon is under attack and making a new one before you get told to. I believe this is a legitimate concern as you are losing pylons and have to spend 100 more minerals remaking it. Sure you rebuild them preemptively, but can an economy from an early game aggression build like this build actually keep up with all the probe/gateway/pylon/zealot production? You're bound to hit max psi couple times or if you don't, then you'll probably end up with less zealots or something. Muffin this is pure speculation however, kwark is telling you from the perspective of a b rank player that it can work. So unless you have some hard evidence for your case I'm not sure if you can really say these type of things. If you really want to go this indepth this conversation should be moved to analysis of some hard evidence such as replays maybe?
This might be pure speculation, but all kwark is saying is it will work it will work. He doesn't mention how often it works and what happens when he doesn't get the desirable result.
His argument is basically this: It works. It never fails. You're a retard who doesn't understand anything. So what I say counts and its not a cheese.
I just want to discuss what will happen if it fails, but hes avoiding it.
|
Indeed then reason I value his reasoning over yours is that he allegedly uses this build frequently and is ranked quite higher then you. However I feel that you case can still be made but needs to have so hard evidence that the result isn't desirable. If kwark would be so kind to give a few replays of it they could be analyzed to prove these things but unfortunately your case cannot be proven unless performed in actuality. Basically if he does give us replays you can still point out apparent holes in his play but we would need to see them consistently exploited for it to be valid. Also there comes the problem of skill level whereas lesser builds can still seem better when performed by players of higher calibur and vice versa. However imo we can't come to a true definate decision on these things except "it works" or "it doesn't work". This is all over the play and totally my opinion any questions and I'll try to elaborate more on what I mean.
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 28 2009 11:21 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2009 11:15 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 11:01 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:54 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:50 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2009 10:39 MuffinDude wrote:On December 28 2009 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Or I know a PvP build I use all the time better than a guy who never uses it at all but theorycrafts about it and am actually right? That might be the case. The question is really a B player playing against random people on iccup can actually warrant this build as "not cheese." B is high rank, but hey its not A. And you still haven't answered to what happens if you don't disrupt their econ enough. 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. Like I said many times, your example with expanding and mining is a terrible one since you have control over that and you don't have control over how many probes you kill. And we're not talking about doing this to people who are six ranks lower than you. We're talking about what will happen if we use it against competent players. You can compare this to 2 hatch muta, but risk is bigger than 2 hatch muta if you don't do enough damage because you are losing your food and production buildings with it. This is why I consider it as cheese. When I said I use this at B rank I didn't mean I use this at B rank while playing D ranks. I mean I use this against competent players. Just to clear that up. Also gateways are cheap. Protoss doesn't need to devote worker time to making them, you're only losing their mineral value and the time it takes to make them. I think you overestimate how bad that is. On destination you can slow them for ages on a ramp. On HBR if you're really concerned you can just wall the choke. On Peaks you can block with one zealot. It really doesn't take that long for an extra probe to pay for itself, or a dead probe to punish. This is all true, but when you lose your pylons and gateways, think about this, do you even have enough food to make enough zealots to defend? You've been powering probes while you harass them to get the economic advantage and you just lost your pylons. If you say that you built more than one pylon in your base, then your attack would end really early because you will run out of pylons powering the gateway, and as a result it might of not done as much damage as you would of liked. Then while your supply blocked, he can power probes while attack you at the same time while you're waiting for the pylons to warp in. Its a pretty big risk to take. When managing psi I take into account pylons I expect to lose and rebuild them preemptively. This is because I am a good player. I don't get psi blocked early game. What you're trying to say is that if the player doing it is a noob and makes a bunch of stupid mistakes then it might not work. I really don't see how that's a fair criticism of any build. I think we're again going back to you simply not having the level to understand things like seeing your pylon is under attack and making a new one before you get told to. I believe this is a legitimate concern as you are losing pylons and have to spend 100 more minerals remaking it. Sure you rebuild them preemptively, but can an economy from an early game aggression build like this build actually keep up with all the probe/gateway/pylon/zealot production? You're bound to hit max psi couple times or if you don't, then you'll probably end up with less zealots or something. Now while he uses minerals to remake probes, you have to use minerals to remake pylons, so the damage of him losing probes gets evened out with the pylons you lose.
You have enough minerals to make probes and pylons. Your probe production never stops and therefore you maintain your probe difference. And over time that is far, far more valuable than lost pylons and gateways.
You're phrasing your theorycrafting as questions. The answer is yes, the build can keep up with it. Remember he's allowed to have around 3 more zealots than you without you being in any trouble, just from travel time. More if you have a ramp secured. With a secure ramp you have 3 zealots at the top attacking 2 of his you can hold for ages. And ages + better probe count = better zealot count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
