After a game, the question whether the certain build is a cheese arises quite often. Therefore this guide is going to be writing to list out all the possible cheese builds, except here is the catch, I am not writing the guide but Teamliquid is. Every week, I will post up a build that people often consider as "cheese" and we will discuss it for a week. Then I will create a poll at the end of the week, lasting about a day and you guys will vote to see what is a cheese and what isn't a cheese. If there is a general consensus while discussing the build, then I will end the discussion early and go to the next build. Hopefully, this will reduce the useless arguments on what a cheese is and what a cheese isn't by a bit.
As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Cheese Proxy 2-gate PvP, Halfway and beyond the map, but not in mineral line.
Not Cheese<- Made so I can keep track whats been discussed already.
To avoid any biased answers, I will avoid starting discussion on builds that was recently used. I'm also starting off with builds that are more commonly counted as cheese.
This Week's Cheese: Proxy 2-gate PvP In your opponent's mineral line.
Fontong is arguing that this is not a cheese because its done to delay mining. Some example games. Stork v Best
not only is this VERY situational--read: map dependent, and in the case of proxies positionally dependent, AND there are variations of all debatably "cheesy" builds--but other than the idea itself, youre not really offering anything in this OP. maybe include a little bit of your own thoughts, and motivations, rather than "oh hey i have an idea, do it for me!!"
that being said, im not trying to crash and burn you, im just explaining myself. so as to contribute, im going to say that, though obviously specifically dependent, proxy 2gate IS, imo, generally speaking at least, cheese. there i said it. hoping the OP does some cleaning up and there are some good posts so this can actually be a good thread.
Great idea but I believe there are more kinds of proxy 2 gates 9-10 gate 10-12 gate, with / without probes etc. Even if it IS CHEESE. You can also sort them according to pylon placement, map etc. For example on 4 player maps the gates usually go in the middle where as on 2 player maps the gates would go next to your opponent's base. Sometimes pylon is in base gates outside or vice-versa. I am not a protoss player but this could turn into a great guide.
What matchup? PvZ I wouldn't really consider it cheese if it was proxied at the natural with the intent of expanding soon afterwards. Like how people use it on Longinus.
If it's a proxy and a 2 gate, then it's definitely a cheese. If scouted, the opponent can match your production, have quicker reinforcements, and easily overtake the proxy location. If it were only one gate, still proxied, then in PvT only it's not a cheese (looking at the games on Destination). If it were only at the natural in PvZ, like many people have posted, it's a normal pressure build.
Does a strategy have to have a chance at winning in order to be considered cheese? Like 4-probe rush, my favorite build against 10apm noobs, is not cheese, right?
Cheese -noun Term used by mediocre, incompetent Star Craft players to refer to an opposing strategy meant to defeat them in less than 10 minutes. -verb To use an all-in-by-nature type of strategy to take out an equally, or higher skilled opponent swiftly.
On December 26 2009 08:24 MorroW[MB] wrote: why is there so much talk about cheese?
Agreed. This is pointless semantics.
Lets talk about how to pull it off, and how to defend it, not what to call it. We use the word 'cheese' to describe a non-standard opening. Can we not leave it at that?
1) Non-standard build 2) that you have to commit to before scouting the opponent 3) and relies on the element of surprise to work (if scouted you are at a huge disadvantage)
if u pull probes to attack with the zealots, i think that would be considered cheese because its more than just putting pressure. Same thing with bunker rushes. If u pull 5 scvs to go along with rines to bunker rush then its a rush. Zerg on the other hand, doesn't have much of a selection of cheeses except 4-5 pool and 3 hatch ling all in. Which if u pull drones, they would not be as effective because they have a limited number of them in the first place. Some people would argue that people who get angry and start calling cheese for a certain strat is something a noob would do. But keep in mind that some people want to play a good game that involves their very best and learn something from the game instead of losing to someone who was either too lazy or just want to end the game quick.
On December 26 2009 08:24 MorroW[MB] wrote: why is there so much talk about cheese?
Agreed. This is pointless semantics.
Lets talk about how to pull it off, and how to defend it, not what to call it. We use the word 'cheese' to describe a non-standard opening. Can we not leave it at that?
I made this because there is so much dispute over whether the build is actually a cheese or not. Why can't we just sort of identify builds as cheese so the pointless discussion will end.
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.
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.
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats 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.
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats cheese.
From OP: As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
so proxy gates right next to the opponent in their own base get a 25% on the cheese definition. That's an F no matter where you are.
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats cheese.
From OP: As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
so proxy gates right next to the opponent in their own base get a 25% on the cheese definition. That's an F no matter where you are.
I refute you here.
First of all
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
A. Thats 3 things you listed and you gave it a 25% based on cheese definition. You can't get 25% with 3 things, maybe 33.33% or 66.67%, but not 25%. B. It is relatively easy to defeat if scouted. PJ v stork in like 2007 WCG i think, stork proxy 2 gate in pj's nat, pj scouted it and won the game. Defending it really depends on the skill. If they're even on skill, I'd say you should be able to win since you got probes and shit on your side.
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats cheese.
From OP: As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
so proxy gates right next to the opponent in their own base get a 25% on the cheese definition. That's an F no matter where you are.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
A. Thats 3 things you listed and you gave it a 25% based on cheese definition. You can't get 25% with 3 things, maybe 33.33% or 66.67%, but not 25%. B. It is relatively easy to defeat if scouted. PJ v stork in like 2007 WCG i think, stork proxy 2 gate in pj's nat, pj scouted it and won the game. Defending it really depends on the skill. If they're even on skill, I'd say you should be able to win since you got probes and shit on your side.
Proxy gates in minline/main: 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats cheese.
From OP: As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
so proxy gates right next to the opponent in their own base get a 25% on the cheese definition. That's an F no matter where you are.
I refute you here.
First of all
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
A. Thats 3 things you listed and you gave it a 25% based on cheese definition. You can't get 25% with 3 things, maybe 33.33% or 66.67%, but not 25%. B. It is relatively easy to defeat if scouted. PJ v stork in like 2007 WCG i think, stork proxy 2 gate in pj's nat, pj scouted it and won the game. Defending it really depends on the skill. If they're even on skill, I'd say you should be able to win since you got probes and shit on your side.
Proxy gates in minline/main: 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
i never posted a game with proxy gates in the nat
Ok. I'll admit that proxy in their base is rather weird situation. But lets look at it this way. 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: yes, unconventional, but still yes, I would be surprised as fuck if it happens to me. 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: Not applicable 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
Excluding the NA category, thats a 66%, thats barely passing (maybe not in some places) but its enough for a diplomat in high school.
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats cheese.
From OP: As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
so proxy gates right next to the opponent in their own base get a 25% on the cheese definition. That's an F no matter where you are.
I refute you here.
First of all
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
A. Thats 3 things you listed and you gave it a 25% based on cheese definition. You can't get 25% with 3 things, maybe 33.33% or 66.67%, but not 25%. B. It is relatively easy to defeat if scouted. PJ v stork in like 2007 WCG i think, stork proxy 2 gate in pj's nat, pj scouted it and won the game. Defending it really depends on the skill. If they're even on skill, I'd say you should be able to win since you got probes and shit on your side.
Proxy gates in minline/main: 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
i never posted a game with proxy gates in the nat
Ok. I'll admit that proxy in their base is rather weird situation. But lets look at it this way. 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: yes, unconventional, but still yes, I would be surprised as fuck if it happens to me. 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: Not applicable 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
Excluding the NA category, thats a 66%, thats barely passing (maybe not in some places) but its enough for a diplomat in high school.
So something that fulfills this following statement is cheese?
Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise**. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted.
**where the condition of surprising the opponent can be fulfilled by doing everything fully within his vision
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats cheese.
From OP: As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
so proxy gates right next to the opponent in their own base get a 25% on the cheese definition. That's an F no matter where you are.
I refute you here.
First of all
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
A. Thats 3 things you listed and you gave it a 25% based on cheese definition. You can't get 25% with 3 things, maybe 33.33% or 66.67%, but not 25%. B. It is relatively easy to defeat if scouted. PJ v stork in like 2007 WCG i think, stork proxy 2 gate in pj's nat, pj scouted it and won the game. Defending it really depends on the skill. If they're even on skill, I'd say you should be able to win since you got probes and shit on your side.
Proxy gates in minline/main: 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
i never posted a game with proxy gates in the nat
Ok. I'll admit that proxy in their base is rather weird situation. But lets look at it this way. 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: yes, unconventional, but still yes, I would be surprised as fuck if it happens to me. 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: Not applicable 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
Excluding the NA category, thats a 66%, thats barely passing (maybe not in some places) but its enough for a diplomat in high school.
So something that fulfills this following statement is cheese?
Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise**. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted.
**where the condition of surprising the opponent can be fulfilled by doing everything fully within his vision
That is why I created this thread. To pick on these little details. Save your argument for now, I'll be more specific by stating not in your opponent's base for the specification.
But you did read why stork would of lost if it wasn't on plasma right?
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats cheese.
From OP: As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
so proxy gates right next to the opponent in their own base get a 25% on the cheese definition. That's an F no matter where you are.
I refute you here.
First of all
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
A. Thats 3 things you listed and you gave it a 25% based on cheese definition. You can't get 25% with 3 things, maybe 33.33% or 66.67%, but not 25%. B. It is relatively easy to defeat if scouted. PJ v stork in like 2007 WCG i think, stork proxy 2 gate in pj's nat, pj scouted it and won the game. Defending it really depends on the skill. If they're even on skill, I'd say you should be able to win since you got probes and shit on your side.
Proxy gates in minline/main: 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
i never posted a game with proxy gates in the nat
Ok. I'll admit that proxy in their base is rather weird situation. But lets look at it this way. 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: yes, unconventional, but still yes, I would be surprised as fuck if it happens to me. 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: Not applicable 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
Excluding the NA category, thats a 66%, thats barely passing (maybe not in some places) but its enough for a diplomat in high school.
So something that fulfills this following statement is cheese?
Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise**. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted.
**where the condition of surprising the opponent can be fulfilled by doing everything fully within his vision
That is why I created this thread. To pick on these little details. Save your argument for now, I'll be more specific by stating not in your opponent's base.
But you did read why stork would of lost if it wasn't on plasma right?
And I don't agree with you. I think we could come to a satisfactory conclusion with a replay, but since there isn't one available I don't think you can really prove it either way. Not only that, the map without the eggs would be an entire different story anyway.
I agree with you though about the difficulty of defining cheese, which is partially why I argued this.
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.
ooo settle grettel.
but guys... come on. TWO gates, PROXIED in your OPPONENTS MAIN. thats cheese.
From OP: As for the definition of cheese, I will take the definition of cheese from liquidpedia which is - "Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted." After this is done, hopefully the list can go into liquidpedia.
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
so proxy gates right next to the opponent in their own base get a 25% on the cheese definition. That's an F no matter where you are.
I refute you here.
First of all
Proxy gates in minline/main: Highly unconventional: yes Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted easy to defeat if scouted: no
A. Thats 3 things you listed and you gave it a 25% based on cheese definition. You can't get 25% with 3 things, maybe 33.33% or 66.67%, but not 25%. B. It is relatively easy to defeat if scouted. PJ v stork in like 2007 WCG i think, stork proxy 2 gate in pj's nat, pj scouted it and won the game. Defending it really depends on the skill. If they're even on skill, I'd say you should be able to win since you got probes and shit on your side.
Proxy gates in minline/main: 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: only because it is unconventional 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: this doesn't even apply for the games i posted 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
i never posted a game with proxy gates in the nat
Ok. I'll admit that proxy in their base is rather weird situation. But lets look at it this way. 1Highly unconventional: yes 2Take opponent by surprise: yes, unconventional, but still yes, I would be surprised as fuck if it happens to me. 3impossible to defeat if not scouted: Not applicable 4easy to defeat if scouted: no
Excluding the NA category, thats a 66%, thats barely passing (maybe not in some places) but its enough for a diplomat in high school.
So something that fulfills this following statement is cheese?
Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise**. In general, cheese is nearly impossible to defeat if it is not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted.
**where the condition of surprising the opponent can be fulfilled by doing everything fully within his vision
That is why I created this thread. To pick on these little details. Save your argument for now, I'll be more specific by stating not in your opponent's base.
But you did read why stork would of lost if it wasn't on plasma right?
And I don't agree with you. I think we could come to a satisfactory conclusion with a replay, but since there isn't one available I don't think you can really prove it either way. Not only that, the map without the eggs would be an entire different story anyway.
Well that build was map specific anyway. Stork with his great builds already planned it all out. If it wasn't on plasma, he would of probably put more into this build. But there must also be a reason why its so rarely used. But as I said, save this for later. Discuss whether proxy 2 gate from halfway and beyond in pvp is a cheese or not.
I would be surprised if someone could come up with an argument, besides the special case I brought up, as to why proxy gates from halfway and beyond aren't cheese.
Op, you are the one who raged so badly yesterday at OSL Ro8, because Flash and Shine won, one by cheesing, the other one by using a feature of the map?
I can't really take this thread seriously as you consider that cheese is gay and, if I understood correctly almost unlegit.
Save time by honestly just taking some obvious ones as Cheese....
Proxy 2Gate BBS 4-5 Pool 3 Hatch All-in Mass Ling 2 Hatch Hydra Bust vs Protoss FE All-in Ling with Drone Drill ANY 1 Hatch Zerg Build in ZvT or ZvP
Then there are debatable ones. The first list are builds I feel should be considered cheese. The second are builds I think shouldn't be considered cheese. These aren't 100% concrete (although some are pretty damn close) obvious such as a 4pool or BBS but a lot I'm nearly positive the community would vote as Cheese. Why not just set up a massive number of polls for all of these? Think the discussion will help that much?
Ones I Say YES It's Cheese - Variations of 2 Fact vs Protoss - DT Rush vs Terran - DT Drop vs Terran - Terran Deep 6 vs Protoss - +1 1 Base Speedlot Timing Attack vs Zerg - 2 Hatch Muta vs Protoss - 2 Base Carrier vs Terran (one of my favorite protoss strategies, you have no idea how many times I've been called a fag or someone with no skill because carriers are the most "skill-less" unit in the entire game) - Sparks Build - Ayumi Build - Any proxy facts/robos/hatches etc. Including Proxy Robo to elevator Toss units into Terran main - 2 Hatch Lurker (and even more so with slow drop) - 1 Gate Proxy by Protoss - Protoss Bulldog vs Terran - Speedling Runby vs Toss
Ones I Say NO It's Not Cheese - 2 Port Wraith - Builds like 12 Nex/14 CC/3 hatch before Pool - +1 Speedlot Timing attack vs Zerg from FE - Proxy 8 Rax into mech (may or may not bunker rush depending on Zerg BO). - Manner Pylons - Bunker rush vs 12 nex accompanied by 3-4 SCVs. - Fantasy Build (dropship 4 vult in Zerg Main) - Fake Mech - 10/15 Gate vs Terran - ANY Form of Gas Stealing
On December 26 2009 20:42 FabledIntegral wrote: Save time by honestly just taking some obvious ones as Cheese....
Proxy 2Gate BBS 4-5 Pool 3 Hatch All-in Mass Ling 2 Hatch Hydra Bust vs Protoss FE All-in Ling with Drone Drill ANY 1 Hatch Zerg Build in ZvT or ZvP
Then there are debatable ones. The first list are builds I feel should be considered cheese. The second are builds I think shouldn't be considered cheese. These aren't 100% concrete (although some are pretty damn close) obvious such as a 4pool or BBS but a lot I'm nearly positive the community would vote as Cheese. Why not just set up a massive number of polls for all of these? Think the discussion will help that much?
Ones I Say YES It's Cheese - Variations of 2 Fact vs Protoss - DT Rush vs Terran - DT Drop vs Terran - Terran Deep 6 vs Protoss - +1 1 Base Speedlot Timing Attack vs Zerg - 2 Hatch Muta vs Protoss - 2 Base Carrier vs Terran (one of my favorite protoss strategies, you have no idea how many times I've been called a fag or someone with no skill because carriers are the most "skill-less" unit in the entire game) - Sparks Build - Ayumi Build - Any proxy facts/robos/hatches etc. Including Proxy Robo to elevator Toss units into Terran main - 2 Hatch Lurker (and even more so with slow drop) - 1 Gate Proxy by Protoss - Protoss Bulldog vs Terran - Speedling Runby vs Toss
Ones I Say NO It's Not Cheese - 2 Port Wraith - Builds like 12 Nex/14 CC/3 hatch before Pool - +1 Speedlot Timing attack vs Zerg from FE - Proxy 8 Rax into mech (may or may not bunker rush depending on Zerg BO). - Manner Pylons - Bunker rush vs 12 nex accompanied by 3-4 SCVs. - Fantasy Build (dropship 4 vult in Zerg Main) - Fake Mech - 10/15 Gate vs Terran - ANY Form of Gas Stealing
As you just saw, there was surprisingly a lot of debate on proxy 2 gate. So lets take this slowly.
On December 26 2009 20:42 FabledIntegral wrote: Save time by honestly just taking some obvious ones as Cheese....
Proxy 2Gate BBS 4-5 Pool 3 Hatch All-in Mass Ling 2 Hatch Hydra Bust vs Protoss FE All-in Ling with Drone Drill ANY 1 Hatch Zerg Build in ZvT or ZvP
Then there are debatable ones. The first list are builds I feel should be considered cheese. The second are builds I think shouldn't be considered cheese. These aren't 100% concrete (although some are pretty damn close) obvious such as a 4pool or BBS but a lot I'm nearly positive the community would vote as Cheese. Why not just set up a massive number of polls for all of these? Think the discussion will help that much?
Ones I Say YES It's Cheese - Variations of 2 Fact vs Protoss - DT Rush vs Terran - DT Drop vs Terran - Terran Deep 6 vs Protoss - +1 1 Base Speedlot Timing Attack vs Zerg - 2 Hatch Muta vs Protoss - 2 Base Carrier vs Terran (one of my favorite protoss strategies, you have no idea how many times I've been called a fag or someone with no skill because carriers are the most "skill-less" unit in the entire game) - Sparks Build - Ayumi Build - Any proxy facts/robos/hatches etc. Including Proxy Robo to elevator Toss units into Terran main - 2 Hatch Lurker (and even more so with slow drop) - 1 Gate Proxy by Protoss - Protoss Bulldog vs Terran - Speedling Runby vs Toss
Ones I Say NO It's Not Cheese - 2 Port Wraith - Builds like 12 Nex/14 CC/3 hatch before Pool - +1 Speedlot Timing attack vs Zerg from FE - Proxy 8 Rax into mech (may or may not bunker rush depending on Zerg BO). - Manner Pylons - Bunker rush vs 12 nex accompanied by 3-4 SCVs. - Fantasy Build (dropship 4 vult in Zerg Main) - Fake Mech - 10/15 Gate vs Terran - ANY Form of Gas Stealing
As you just saw, there was surprisingly a lot of debate on proxy 2 gate. So lets take this slowly.
Well I read the first page and a half and there was no debate and since the poll so far is 100% yes... I just figured.
On December 26 2009 20:42 FabledIntegral wrote: Save time by honestly just taking some obvious ones as Cheese....
Proxy 2Gate BBS 4-5 Pool 3 Hatch All-in Mass Ling 2 Hatch Hydra Bust vs Protoss FE All-in Ling with Drone Drill ANY 1 Hatch Zerg Build in ZvT or ZvP
Then there are debatable ones. The first list are builds I feel should be considered cheese. The second are builds I think shouldn't be considered cheese. These aren't 100% concrete (although some are pretty damn close) obvious such as a 4pool or BBS but a lot I'm nearly positive the community would vote as Cheese. Why not just set up a massive number of polls for all of these? Think the discussion will help that much?
Ones I Say YES It's Cheese - Variations of 2 Fact vs Protoss - DT Rush vs Terran - DT Drop vs Terran - Terran Deep 6 vs Protoss - +1 1 Base Speedlot Timing Attack vs Zerg - 2 Hatch Muta vs Protoss - 2 Base Carrier vs Terran (one of my favorite protoss strategies, you have no idea how many times I've been called a fag or someone with no skill because carriers are the most "skill-less" unit in the entire game) - Sparks Build - Ayumi Build - Any proxy facts/robos/hatches etc. Including Proxy Robo to elevator Toss units into Terran main - 2 Hatch Lurker (and even more so with slow drop) - 1 Gate Proxy by Protoss - Protoss Bulldog vs Terran - Speedling Runby vs Toss
Ones I Say NO It's Not Cheese - 2 Port Wraith - Builds like 12 Nex/14 CC/3 hatch before Pool - +1 Speedlot Timing attack vs Zerg from FE - Proxy 8 Rax into mech (may or may not bunker rush depending on Zerg BO). - Manner Pylons - Bunker rush vs 12 nex accompanied by 3-4 SCVs. - Fantasy Build (dropship 4 vult in Zerg Main) - Fake Mech - 10/15 Gate vs Terran - ANY Form of Gas Stealing
As you just saw, there was surprisingly a lot of debate on proxy 2 gate. So lets take this slowly.
Well I read the first page and a half and there was no debate and since the poll so far is 100% yes... I just figured.
On December 26 2009 21:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's almost as silly as the 165465 thread about some jackass being bonjwa or not.
If you listen Koreans pro in interview, they don't talk about "gay cheese", but about "prepared strategies".
They're professionals. Maybe they don't call it "gay cheese" because people will look down upon these pros? This is more of a thing to clear up what cheeses are and what isn't, because we tend to have these kinds of arguments often.
PS the Proxy gates in main is VERY easily countered by not letting your opponent manner pylon you. The entire build relies on manner pylon because it forces the probes to go around and mine from the back... which is where the gates are. Insanely inefficient mining and it allows much easier sniping by zealots.
Best wasn't prepared for hte strat - he blocked the intial manner pylon but didn't block the second attepmt - a very feasible task. He also should have two gated but didn't. He also easily could have taken out the seocnd pylon but went back to mining. It was more inexperience at handling the situation imo than anything else. Just like progamers had a ton of inexperience handling Terran mech when it was repopularized.
PS. Who cares? No one is going to argue it wasn't cheese, are they?
And who the hell is to say the definition on Liquipedia, a friggin' WIKI that anyone can edit, is the accurate description? It also says "in general," which means "not applicable to all circumstances."
On December 26 2009 21:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's almost as silly as the 165465 thread about some jackass being bonjwa or not.
If you listen Koreans pro in interview, they don't talk about "gay cheese", but about "prepared strategies".
They're professionals. Maybe they don't call it "gay cheese" because people will look down upon these pros? This is more of a thing to clear up what cheeses are and what isn't, because we tend to have these kinds of arguments often.
Giving fuel to nerd rage is not such a noble objective. Imo.
Your thread is judgemental, and therefore doesn't have any value. As little values as all theses discussions about wether Luxury is "cheesy" (means bad and gay) or not when he plays agressive.
Dictionary: (informal) of a solution to a problem, inelegant, showing no skill
It's not called "cheese" because that sounds similar to cheats xD
I think the following defines cheese:
1) you commit to it before scouting (so it's impossible that you are reacting to the opponent's weakness) 2) easy to stop when scouted, so you rely on surprise 3) all-in, if stopped you lose (you aren't actually doing a viable build)
On December 26 2009 23:28 Phrujbaz wrote: Dictionary: (informal) of a solution to a problem, inelegant, showing no skill
It's not called "cheese" because that sounds similar to cheats xD
I think the following defines cheese:
1) you commit to it before scouting (so it's impossible that you are reacting to the opponent's weakness) 2) easy to stop when scouted, so you rely on surprise 3) all-in, if stopped you lose (you aren't actually doing a viable build)
You write dictionaries?
Who said it was not elegant. Boxer 3-0 over Yellow was incredibly elegant. Someone playing brutal macro oriented shit without any mind game / originality is not elgant.
Now, I just lost a game where I succesfully blocked a 4 pool. So your definition is wrong again. 4 pool is not less viable than 12 hatch, you just need to make damage because you invested early game into an agressive playstyle.
That's not different than 2 hatch muta compared to 3 hatch muta: if you don't make damage, you lose, as your eceonomy is weaker than the terran's one. So... Is 2 hatch muta cheese?
On December 27 2009 00:33 Biff The Understudy wrote: You write dictionaries?
Who said it was not elegant. Boxer 3-0 over Yellow was incredibly elegant. Someone playing brutal macro oriented shit without any mind game / originality is not elgant.
I don't write dictionaries. This is the actual dictionary definition of cheesy:
I applied this definition to starcraft, seeing what defines a strategy that is inelegant/has no skill. The following are elements that I think show you are aren't trying to outplay your opponent but simply trying to get a cheap win:
1) Commit to it before scouting 2) High-risk strategy 3) Main strength is element of surprise 4) Leaves you at a large disadvantage if stopped
So I think these elements are what define cheesy strategies.
Boxer 3-0 over yellow was not cheese. Bunker rush actually fails the cheese definition on all counts! Boxer's all in rine+scv rush only fits the definition at point 4. He had already scouted at that point, and just went for the quickest win.
That's not different than 2 hatch muta compared to 3 hatch muta: if you don't make damage, you lose, as your eceonomy is weaker than the terran's one. So... Is 2 hatch muta cheese?
Let's check if 2 hat muta is cheese:
1) commit to before scouting? -> no 2) high-risk strategy? -> no 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> no
It seems it's not. Yes, you can debate on some of them but let's compare to four pool
1) commit to before scouting? -> definitely yes 2) high-risk strategy? -> definitely yes 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely yes 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely yes
4pool is clearly cheese
Now, I just lost a game where I succesfully blocked a 4 pool. So your definition is wrong again. 4 pool is not less viable than 12 hatch, you just need to make damage because you invested early game into an agressive playstyle.
Honestly if you scout a four pool and micro intelligently, he will be so much at a disadvantage it's not even funny. If you kill the last zergling with your last SCV so you have one SCV left I don't think you really defended the four pool. You actually died to it, just decided to play out instead of gg immediately.
On December 27 2009 00:33 Biff The Understudy wrote: You write dictionaries?
Who said it was not elegant. Boxer 3-0 over Yellow was incredibly elegant. Someone playing brutal macro oriented shit without any mind game / originality is not elgant.
I don't write dictionaries. This is the actual dictionary definition of cheesy:
I applied this definition to starcraft, seeing what defines a strategy that is inelegant/has no skill. The following are elements that I think show you are aren't trying to outplay your opponent but simply trying to get a cheap win:
1) Commit to it before scouting 2) High-risk strategy 3) Main strength is element of surprise 4) Leaves you at a large disadvantage if stopped
So I think these elements are what define cheesy strategies.
Boxer 3-0 over yellow was not cheese. Bunker rush actually fails the cheese definition on all counts! Boxer's all in rine+scv rush only fits the definition at point 4. He had already scouted at that point, and just went for the quickest win. If you don't understand, I prefer giving up.
That's not different than 2 hatch muta compared to 3 hatch muta: if you don't make damage, you lose, as your eceonomy is weaker than the terran's one. So... Is 2 hatch muta cheese?
Let's check if 2 hat muta is cheese:
1) commit to before scouting? -> no 2) high-risk strategy? -> no 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> no
It seems it's not. Yes, you can debate on some of them but let's compare to four pool
1) commit to before scouting? -> definitely yes 2) high-risk strategy? -> definitely yes 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely yes 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely yes
Now, I just lost a game where I succesfully blocked a 4 pool. So your definition is wrong again. 4 pool is not less viable than 12 hatch, you just need to make damage because you invested early game into an agressive playstyle.
Honestly if you scout a four pool and micro intelligently, he will be so much at a disadvantage it's not even funny. If you kill the last zergling with your last SCV so you have one SCV left I don't think you really defended the four pool. You actually died to it, just decided to play out instead of gg immediately.
Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
On December 27 2009 07:05 KvkG wrote: Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
Wtf are you talking about - do you think timings don't apply to us because we're not progamers? That's absolutely awful mentality. Those minerals affect the timings of your minerals and thus affect either the effectiveness of a timing attack or the susceptibility of your own build vs a timing attack.
On December 26 2009 08:13 Fontong wrote: [quote] Er there are exceptions to this rule right? Proxy gate in your opponent base can be an economic opening.
What how? If it fails you lose a gateway and a pylon. Thats huge.
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
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.
On December 27 2009 07:05 KvkG wrote: Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
This is true. It will ruin your economy and timings, especially if you are terran. Yeah, at a low enough level it won't matter. But then you probably don't know anyway how to counter what you scout.
And if you scout really early it's often too early to see anything anyway. And at low level you may easily lose your scouting unit. And you can still miss proxied stuff. Sometimes I scout for pylons because they are missing, find nothing and assume P is just bad. And then they put it somewhere that doesn't make sense and I still almost autolose.
I'm not saying you shouldn't scout very early, it's still sometimes a very good idea. But there are more ways to counter cheese.
As for Bisu vs Pukjo, I don't remember any recent map where you could manner pylon and then also manner gateway on a two player map. That you also blocked probes mining from the back was huge.
What he is saying is that there are probably at least 10 other more important things, because of wich you lose a game than early scouting. And thechnicly he's right.
On topic: in base 2 gate is cheesy, but it happens, so often that it could almost pass as standart. lol And even if it gets scouted it's not aoutoloss. They match your gates and it becomes a micro battle. Voted cheese anyway.
On December 27 2009 07:05 KvkG wrote: Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
As for Bisu vs Pukjo, I don't remember any recent map where you could manner pylon and then also manner gateway on a two player map. That you also blocked probes mining from the back was huge.
Of? I don't get your point. I was merely pointing out that both the popular modern 2 player maps allow you to do a manner pylon as bad at on peaks and build 2 gates off it. Why would I be ashamed of posting on tl.
How do you cheese to B- with your 80 apm protoss is you didn't understand what Bisu did vs Pukjo was so bad because it completely blocked off those minerals?
Firstly, I don't cheese. Secondly, who the fuck are you to tell me how I play? I don't criticise whatever the fuck you do. Show me the same respect or failing that, at least try and find out what you're talking about. Thirdly, and in a similar 'you don't know what you're talking about' vein, I got B+ by understanding how to do the same build Bisu did on other maps as every other competent Protoss can do. Ask any good Protoss what the most common PvP opening on HBR was last season. They'll tell you some kind of proxy economic build. Most don't involve 2 gates but 2 gates is a solid option if the opponent doesn't threaten the pylon or cut probes. It's not at all unique to peaks, in fact its way more common on modern 2 player maps than it ever was on peaks.
On December 27 2009 07:05 KvkG wrote: Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
Wtf are you talking about - do you think timings don't apply to us because we're not progamers? That's absolutely awful mentality. Those minerals affect the timings of your minerals and thus affect either the effectiveness of a timing attack or the susceptibility of your own build vs a timing attack.
It doesn't apply to us because we are not programmer because programmer don't need to scout early as they can rely on their micro.
If your micro sucks enough that you know you can't do anything vs a cheese build, scout earlier. Period. And if you can't micro, I don't think scouting at 9 or at 12 will change anything because you kind of blow anyway.
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.
well this thread got me thinking, why is it important to classify builds as cheese/not cheese? Sure some builds obviously are cheese (4 pool) and some obviously aren't (10 rax) but there are tons of in between builds that people can disagree about. (maybe: 2 gate in natural, 8 rax, 9 pool speed, 2 port wraith)
The term people give to classify a build shouldn't really affect how you use the build, so is it really important to categorize builds this way? just my thoughts.. interesting discussion
On December 27 2009 09:34 funnybananaman94 wrote: well this thread got me thinking, why is it important to classify builds as cheese/not cheese? Sure some builds obviously are cheese (4 pool) and some obviously aren't (10 rax) but there are tons of in between builds that people can disagree about. (maybe: 2 gate in natural, 8 rax, 9 pool speed, 2 port wraith)
The term people give to classify a build shouldn't really affect how you use the build, so is it really important to categorize builds this way? just my thoughts.. interesting discussion
Well we at teamliquid seem to be really interested in what is a cheese and what isn't. I'm just starting with the more obvious ones and then go to more debatable ones.
Ok, now we're getting into proxy 2 gate into your opponent's base in pvt. This is highly unconventional and I can only find two games that actually used it. One of them was on plasma, where even if it failed, it would take a while to counter because of the lurker egg. I would say this is a cheese because if it failed, then they would of most likely lost.
My definition of cheeses: Various strategies that occur within the first 3 or so minutes of the game that are all in and various map exploits that also occur within the first 3 or so minutes. This includes:
1/2 proxy gate (in-base 2gate is fine) sub 9pool (9pool speed is fine) bbs (8rax is legit) supply depot blocking on hbr (just one example)
Any strategy after the fifth or so minute is fair game imo. Even the strategies that are "gay" (Proxy factory/proxy dt's, 2hatch slow lurker drop) are all ok in my book.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 08:24 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.
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 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. -_-
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. -_-
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?
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.
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?
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 09:19 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 02:31 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.
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 09:19 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.
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 09:19 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.
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.
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 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?
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 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.
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.
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 10:35 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.
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 10:35 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 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....
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 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 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 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.
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.
I don't see how I'm dodging the "what happens if it fails question". If you don't kill any probes then when you lose control of his base and fall back to yours, as planned, he has the economic advantage rather than you. He then establishes a contain and you are at a disadvantage. That much should be self evident lol.
The point, that I have made countless times now, is that with competent micro, that shouldn't happen. Obviously if it fails you're at a disadvantage. Did I really need to spell that out for you? I was hoping you could work that out for yourself.
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.
I just watched the stork v best game and @6:03 when the attack ended, I counted about 10 probes in best's base. @6:18, I counted about 12 probes+1 probe on its way to best's base in stork's base. 3 probe difference, thats not much of an advantage is it? Now I know that stork went core so he had to stop probe production to build the core, but adding about 2 more probes, which is about how much you can make in the time needed to save up mineral to make a core. So total you can get about 5 probe advantage, but then I would like to subtract about 2 more probe's worth to remake the gateway. So in total you get about 3 probe advantage when it works. Now if best had better control and let 3 more probes live, then suddenly its about even, or you can say that stork would be behind because he has less zealot count and one less gateway.
On December 28 2009 11:39 KwarK wrote: I don't see how I'm dodging the "what happens if it fails question". If you don't kill any probes then when you lose control of his base and fall back to yours, as planned, he has the economic advantage rather than you. He then establishes a contain and you are at a disadvantage. That much should be self evident lol.
The point, that I have made countless times now, is that with competent micro, that shouldn't happen. Obviously if it fails you're at a disadvantage. Did I really need to spell that out for you? I was hoping you could work that out for yourself.
Which leads to the question how often does it fail?
On December 28 2009 11:39 KwarK wrote: I don't see how I'm dodging the "what happens if it fails question". If you don't kill any probes then when you lose control of his base and fall back to yours, as planned, he has the economic advantage rather than you. He then establishes a contain and you are at a disadvantage. That much should be self evident lol.
The point, that I have made countless times now, is that with competent micro, that shouldn't happen. Obviously if it fails you're at a disadvantage. Did I really need to spell that out for you? I was hoping you could work that out for yourself.
Which leads to the question how often does it fail?
About as often as I play A- korean Protoss players. They have good micro.
If you screw up your zealot micro? What this really boils down to is the same as any strategy you preform. If you go 2gate reaver and screw up your reaver micro and get it kill. That is how that build would fail right?
On December 28 2009 11:39 KwarK wrote: I don't see how I'm dodging the "what happens if it fails question". If you don't kill any probes then when you lose control of his base and fall back to yours, as planned, he has the economic advantage rather than you. He then establishes a contain and you are at a disadvantage. That much should be self evident lol.
The point, that I have made countless times now, is that with competent micro, that shouldn't happen. Obviously if it fails you're at a disadvantage. Did I really need to spell that out for you? I was hoping you could work that out for yourself.
Which leads to the question how often does it fail?
Well since you won't take the opinion of Kwark, who is definitely qualified to talk about this, about the viability of the build, just look at the video of Best vs Stork on plasma.
Do you think Stork, an S class player, would have used the build if he didn't think he could deal significant economic damage, versus someone who, at the time, was an S class PvPer?
On December 28 2009 11:39 KwarK wrote: I don't see how I'm dodging the "what happens if it fails question". If you don't kill any probes then when you lose control of his base and fall back to yours, as planned, he has the economic advantage rather than you. He then establishes a contain and you are at a disadvantage. That much should be self evident lol.
The point, that I have made countless times now, is that with competent micro, that shouldn't happen. Obviously if it fails you're at a disadvantage. Did I really need to spell that out for you? I was hoping you could work that out for yourself.
Which leads to the question how often does it fail?
Well since you won't take the opinion of Kwark, who is definitely qualified to talk about this, about the viability of the build, just look at the video of Best vs Stork on plasma.
Do you think Stork, an S class player, would have used the build if he didn't think he could deal significant economic damage, versus someone who, at the time, was an S class PvPer?
In that video, stork's game plan was to get a tech advantage over best, which is why stork followed through with the gas steal. He wasn't that economically ahead. And its not that I won't take the opinion of kwark, its more like I want to hear on about how far behind you will be if it doesn't work. Besides saying it will work it will work, he is just stating the obvious by saying it if doesn't work, it fails. I want to know how much it fails by and all. The only thing he convinced me was that there is much more depth to this and if it works, it works, the latter being pretty obvious.
On December 28 2009 11:52 ToN wrote: If you screw up your zealot micro? What this really boils down to is the same as any strategy you preform. If you go 2gate reaver and screw up your reaver micro and get it kill. That is how that build would fail right?
If you say it this way, won't all build that has been classified as cheese be not cheese then? Because you know, if you don't do enough damage with these cheese then its fail?
Hmm well I haven't agreed with a common definition for cheese. There have been several definition bounced around the thread. I think the direction this thread is going in is whether the build is viable. Viable meaning that even if your opponent knows what your doing you can still unless you screw up. It isn't one of those things where your praying he doesn't find out in fear of it failing which sounds more like what a cheese could be considered.
If you're doing it in the middle of their base and it's a question of whether they know the correct response and can execute it rather than any luck then it can't be cheese. Cheese relies on chance. If they know what you're doing then they don't have to get lucky to block it, they just have to get smart.
There is a higher probability of losing when cheesing. The reason it works is when the enemy does not know how to properly negate it because if its rarity. I believe this is what kwark said just said restated. Under this definition I believe this build can be defined as not cheese unless otherwise proven inviable somehow.
On December 28 2009 12:13 KwarK wrote: If you're doing it in the middle of their base and it's a question of whether they know the correct response and can execute it rather than any luck then it can't be cheese. Cheese relies on chance. If they know what you're doing then they don't have to get lucky to block it, they just have to get smart.
So your definition of cheese is the element of luck.
Proxy 2 gate can reach very similar results as horror 2 gate, yet proxy 2 gate is counted as cheese. Any explanation to this?
On December 28 2009 12:16 ToN wrote: There is a higher probability of losing when cheesing. The reason it works is when the enemy does not know how to properly negate it because if its rarity. I believe this is what kwark said just said restated. Under this definition I believe this build can be defined as not cheese unless otherwise proven inviable somehow.
All builds are viable to some point, you should remember that.
On December 28 2009 12:13 KwarK wrote: If you're doing it in the middle of their base and it's a question of whether they know the correct response and can execute it rather than any luck then it can't be cheese. Cheese relies on chance. If they know what you're doing then they don't have to get lucky to block it, they just have to get smart.
So your definition of cheese is the element of luck.
Proxy 2 gate can reach very similar results as horror 2 gate, yet proxy 2 gate is counted as cheese. Any explanation to this?
Horror gate isn't a blind build, as Kwark explained to you many times.
I suppose the definition of viable would basically that there isn't really one exploitative tactic that would give a player of relative skill a high percentage of winning which this build so far has proven not to have. If you guys have already agreed on it being cheese (I don't remember you 2 agree on this but I don't want to reread the entire thread) the reason kwark had stated earlier at least is that if known the build would if known be beaten because of the considerably slower arrival time of zealots.
On December 28 2009 12:13 KwarK wrote: If you're doing it in the middle of their base and it's a question of whether they know the correct response and can execute it rather than any luck then it can't be cheese. Cheese relies on chance. If they know what you're doing then they don't have to get lucky to block it, they just have to get smart.
So your definition of cheese is the element of luck.
Proxy 2 gate can reach very similar results as horror 2 gate, yet proxy 2 gate is counted as cheese. Any explanation to this?
Horror gate isn't a blind build, as Kwark explained to you many times.
Yes, it isn't a blind build, but just because it isn't a blind build, does this suddenly make the build not a cheese? Proxy 2 gate in the natural is easily as scoutable as this horror 2 gate, yet that is still considered as a cheese.
I think this is a cheese build mainly because its a high risk build that determines the flow of the game.
On December 28 2009 12:24 ToN wrote: I suppose the definition of viable would basically that there isn't really one exploitative tactic that would give a player of relative skill a high percentage of winning which this build so far has proven not to have. If you guys have already agreed on it being cheese (I don't remember you 2 agree on this but I don't want to reread the entire thread) the reason kwark had stated earlier at least is that if known the build would if known be beaten because of the considerably slower arrival time of zealots.
We have not set a standard definition of cheese. This is probably the main reason why our ideas conflict, but I sort of wanted to avoid the "define cheese" discussion because it will take a long time to come to a certain definition.
On December 28 2009 12:28 ToN wrote: I think Kwark addressed this earlier as I mentioned in my above post because of the significantly slower zealots it is relatively easy to defend and thus fail.
edit: but is this not another build for another week? =P
Well if I'm the only one who thinks this is a cheese, I might as well start the poll early to see if people think it is a cheese or not.
I think Kwark addressed this earlier as I mentioned in my above post because of the significantly slower zealots it is relatively easy to defend and thus fail.
edit: but is this not another build for another week? =P
Also since this is a discussion originally created to discuss whether this build is cheese or not we first have to come to a decision on cheese. With out knowing what we are looking for we can't look for it.
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?
Yes, it does. A D+ understands the game better than a D. This is fact. I don't see how you could ever hope to refute this.
No, Nal_Ra understands the game better than most people, even more than people like upmagic, lomo, great, and others, but he will probably be lower rank than them on iccup.
Another way of looking at this is an avid sports fan might understand the sport very well, better than some other players, but will lose to them when they actually play the sport.
There I just refuted it. Understanding the game is part of it. Performing is another.
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?
Yes, it does. A D+ understands the game better than a D. This is fact. I don't see how you could ever hope to refute this.
No, Nal_Ra understands the game better than most people, even more than people like upmagic, lomo, great, and others, but he will probably be lower rank than them on iccup.
Another way of looking at this is an avid sports fan might understand the sport very well, better than some other players, but will lose to them when they actually play the sport.
There I just refuted it. Understanding the game is part of it. Performing is another.
You still can't claim to understand the game better than a B/A ranked player and only be D..I mean, sure you can probably get to C- on just macroing well, but after that you need to understand the game to get any further.
I can tell you that Jaedong and Flash understand the game better than anyone. I'm sure we can agree on this. I can also tell you that Jaedong's destruction of the ZvZ match-up not too long ago was based on his UNDERSTANDING of the match-up, not just some coin-flip. Sure, someone like Calm can beat him in a series with tricky builds, but Jaedong is better because he understands.
Well that may vary well be true you need evidence to support your claims. Being B rank on iccup imo is better evidence then if someone was d ranked. Also he's done the strat.... and its also the fact he uses it against b ranked players that imo also supports his cause.
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?
Yes, it does. A D+ understands the game better than a D. This is fact. I don't see how you could ever hope to refute this.
No, Nal_Ra understands the game better than most people, even more than people like upmagic, lomo, great, and others, but he will probably be lower rank than them on iccup.
Another way of looking at this is an avid sports fan might understand the sport very well, better than some other players, but will lose to them when they actually play the sport.
There I just refuted it. Understanding the game is part of it. Performing is another.
You still can't claim to understand the game better than a B/A ranked player and only be D..I mean, sure you can probably get to C- on just macroing well, but after that you need to understand the game to get any further.
I can tell you that Jaedong and Flash understand the game better than anyone. I'm sure we can agree on this. I can also tell you that Jaedong's destruction of the ZvZ match-up not too long ago was based on his UNDERSTANDING of the match-up, not just some coin-flip. Sure, someone like Calm can beat him in a series with tricky builds, but Jaedong is better because he understands.
I'm not sure if jaedong knows better calm, I don't think anyone but the progamers could actually say any progamers understand the game better than the other, but I could also say that jaedong has better mutalisk control than calm and that's a huge factor in his victories. But seriously, the reason why I can't get out of D is because I keep running into mines and other things. High ranks might know how to play better than I do, but it doesn't mean they understand the mechanics better.
Take jaehoon for example. He isn't great, but he comes out with great builds that stork and jangbi use to win. Jaehoon understands the game but he just doesn't have the apm needed to win with it. I think you are completely ignoring the fact that I don't have 300+ APM, or even 200+ APM, to work with and that is whats holding me back mostly.
On December 28 2009 14:48 ToN wrote: Well that may vary well be true you need evidence to support your claims. Being B rank on iccup imo is better evidence then if someone was d ranked. Also he's done the strat.... and its also the fact he uses it against b ranked players that imo also supports his cause.
I provided evidence from stork v best vod that stork wasn't able to keep up constant probe production even though he made a cybernetics and that he didn't have too big of a econ advantage after the gateways fell.
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?
Yes, it does. A D+ understands the game better than a D. This is fact. I don't see how you could ever hope to refute this.
No, Nal_Ra understands the game better than most people, even more than people like upmagic, lomo, great, and others, but he will probably be lower rank than them on iccup.
Another way of looking at this is an avid sports fan might understand the sport very well, better than some other players, but will lose to them when they actually play the sport.
There I just refuted it. Understanding the game is part of it. Performing is another.
You still can't claim to understand the game better than a B/A ranked player and only be D..I mean, sure you can probably get to C- on just macroing well, but after that you need to understand the game to get any further.
I can tell you that Jaedong and Flash understand the game better than anyone. I'm sure we can agree on this. I can also tell you that Jaedong's destruction of the ZvZ match-up not too long ago was based on his UNDERSTANDING of the match-up, not just some coin-flip. Sure, someone like Calm can beat him in a series with tricky builds, but Jaedong is better because he understands.
You can get to C- easily with absolute horrible macro and good understanding, and you can also get there mechanically with little idea what you're doing. Your examples are pretty bad. You can't say shit about Jaedong and Flash understanding the game better than anyone. Many progamers are also limited by their APM, for example Boxer/Stork/Savior are all relatively slow (well Stork claims he is very slow in comparison to Bisu). Nor can you blindly claim Jaedong's ZvZ had anything to do with his understanding of the matchup when it is one of the easier matchups to understand, and instead comes strictly down to micro wars. Am I saying it is easy to understand? No, but the limited number of options of what you can actually DO in the matchup means that his dominance most likely is not attributed to what you are saying.
On December 28 2009 15:05 Ilikestarcraft wrote: you dont even need 100 to get out of d
Well honestly, I havn't even played enough 1v1 ladder games to get out of D even if I won all of it. I played at most 6 games per season so thats probably why I never got out of D.
My apm average around 160~180.
But what do other think about this "horror 2 gate"
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?
Yes, it does. A D+ understands the game better than a D. This is fact. I don't see how you could ever hope to refute this.
No, Nal_Ra understands the game better than most people, even more than people like upmagic, lomo, great, and others, but he will probably be lower rank than them on iccup.
Another way of looking at this is an avid sports fan might understand the sport very well, better than some other players, but will lose to them when they actually play the sport.
There I just refuted it. Understanding the game is part of it. Performing is another.
You still can't claim to understand the game better than a B/A ranked player and only be D..I mean, sure you can probably get to C- on just macroing well, but after that you need to understand the game to get any further.
I can tell you that Jaedong and Flash understand the game better than anyone. I'm sure we can agree on this. I can also tell you that Jaedong's destruction of the ZvZ match-up not too long ago was based on his UNDERSTANDING of the match-up, not just some coin-flip. Sure, someone like Calm can beat him in a series with tricky builds, but Jaedong is better because he understands.
You can get to C- easily with absolute horrible macro and good understanding, and you can also get there mechanically with little idea what you're doing. Your examples are pretty bad. You can't say shit about Jaedong and Flash understanding the game better than anyone. Many progamers are also limited by their APM, for example Boxer/Stork/Savior are all relatively slow (well Stork claims he is very slow in comparison to Bisu). Nor can you blindly claim Jaedong's ZvZ had anything to do with his understanding of the matchup when it is one of the easier matchups to understand, and instead comes strictly down to micro wars. Am I saying it is easy to understand? No, but the limited number of options of what you can actually DO in the matchup means that his dominance most likely is not attributed to what you are saying.
I can agree with the rest of your post, but this part stands out to me, just because I don't think it's true that ZvZ is based entirely on micro wars. There are so many timing quirks in the matchup that are so hard to pick up on.
- Did you prepare your strategy today? ▲ It was ad-libbed. I only prepared the build order, and I played accordingly as the game went. Firefist started out with such a safe build, so I thought that I would win as long as I didn’t make mistakes.
- After your overlord scout, did you find the timing for zergling push? ▲ When I saw my opponent’s zergling count, I knew he went lair first. If he saw me rushing, he would have put down a colony as well as a spire, so I knew he wouldn’t have enough resources for additional lings. When I pushed my first 8 lings, it was good for me to let just a few survive, but because all of them survived luckily, the game was in favor of me.
From his recent MSL game against Firefist. The second part especially is just a small insight into the things that someone like Jaedong can understand and use to his advantage, while someone else, regardless of APM limitations, will most likely not.
Keep in mind that this is just an example, there are undoubtedly more precise timings and other fine details that he's not going to tell the interviewer, just because the less people know about him, the better Jaedong's chances.
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.
You must be kidding me?
When did I raged? You raged when you posted a whole post full of "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK" after Flash roflstomped Jaedong. :-)
My point is perfectly valid, and you didn't bother to discuss it. This discussion doesn't hold any interest as long as use a word which is pejorative, as long as you put a negative value on the idea of cheesing. Everything is legit in starcraft, if not it would be a bad game.
Now, you will make your thread, deciding that 4 pool is a cheese, that cheese is """gay""" and everybody who will get 4 pool will have good reasons to rage because his opponent is gay, it's written now. I say that it is a bad idea, and that you should rather discuss why on earth is there anything bad to open 4 pool, or BBS, or to drone drill your opponent on Troy, or to win a whole serie by bunker rushing your opponent (if he's ad enough not to be able to stop it).
Make a neutral discussion, not the same day that nerd raging over Jaedong being kicked out by Flash who completely outsmarted him, and you'll may have more success. Maybe.
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?
Yes, it does. A D+ understands the game better than a D. This is fact. I don't see how you could ever hope to refute this.
This is not a fact and potentially one of the most easily refutable posts in this thread so far.
On December 28 2009 14:48 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:
On December 28 2009 14:17 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 28 2009 14:10 ShaLLoW[baY] 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?
Yes, it does. A D+ understands the game better than a D. This is fact. I don't see how you could ever hope to refute this.
No, Nal_Ra understands the game better than most people, even more than people like upmagic, lomo, great, and others, but he will probably be lower rank than them on iccup.
Another way of looking at this is an avid sports fan might understand the sport very well, better than some other players, but will lose to them when they actually play the sport.
There I just refuted it. Understanding the game is part of it. Performing is another.
You still can't claim to understand the game better than a B/A ranked player and only be D..I mean, sure you can probably get to C- on just macroing well, but after that you need to understand the game to get any further.
I can tell you that Jaedong and Flash understand the game better than anyone. I'm sure we can agree on this. I can also tell you that Jaedong's destruction of the ZvZ match-up not too long ago was based on his UNDERSTANDING of the match-up, not just some coin-flip. Sure, someone like Calm can beat him in a series with tricky builds, but Jaedong is better because he understands.
You can get to C- easily with absolute horrible macro and good understanding, and you can also get there mechanically with little idea what you're doing. Your examples are pretty bad. You can't say shit about Jaedong and Flash understanding the game better than anyone. Many progamers are also limited by their APM, for example Boxer/Stork/Savior are all relatively slow (well Stork claims he is very slow in comparison to Bisu). Nor can you blindly claim Jaedong's ZvZ had anything to do with his understanding of the matchup when it is one of the easier matchups to understand, and instead comes strictly down to micro wars. Am I saying it is easy to understand? No, but the limited number of options of what you can actually DO in the matchup means that his dominance most likely is not attributed to what you are saying.
I can agree with the rest of your post, but this part stands out to me, just because I don't think it's true that ZvZ is based entirely on micro wars. There are so many timing quirks in the matchup that are so hard to pick up on.
- Did you prepare your strategy today? ▲ It was ad-libbed. I only prepared the build order, and I played accordingly as the game went. Firefist started out with such a safe build, so I thought that I would win as long as I didn’t make mistakes.
- After your overlord scout, did you find the timing for zergling push? ▲ When I saw my opponent’s zergling count, I knew he went lair first. If he saw me rushing, he would have put down a colony as well as a spire, so I knew he wouldn’t have enough resources for additional lings. When I pushed my first 8 lings, it was good for me to let just a few survive, but because all of them survived luckily, the game was in favor of me.
From his recent MSL game against Firefist. The second part especially is just a small insight into the things that someone like Jaedong can understand and use to his advantage, while someone else, regardless of APM limitations, will most likely not.
Keep in mind that this is just an example, there are undoubtedly more precise timings and other fine details that he's not going to tell the interviewer, just because the less people know about him, the better Jaedong's chances.
What? That's incredibly easy to understand if you are able to play the matchup a lot and analyze the matchup. ZvZ you can count drones, know where they should be depending on their BO, and you're given constant scouting information. I'm not sure how what you quoted is relevant because I'm sure many pros could analyze it as well considering the limitations of variability in that matchup.
On December 14 2009 06:52 genericname92 wrote: cheese is an excuse greedy players use when they lose cause they powered too hard
this
Yes.
Coupled with the realization that insufficient scouting is a form of economic greed, and that teching is a form of powering.
On December 20 2009 02:29 Ricjames wrote: What the hell is cheese. Some retarded player invented the word for people that outsmarted him with some tricky play...It is all brood war and no matter how you play, you play how you want. If you play risky, good player punishes you and bad player get his ass "cheesed" and cry.
I think I retreat my vote. 2gate proxy is not "cheese"... there is no such thing as cheese in BW, it is just a risky build as any other.
A "safe" build is that one in which you micro less knowing that you can stop any early aggression but even on those builds you have risks... 2gate robo > reaver for example risks the fact that your opponent goes 4gate goon, and a 4gate goon guy is risking that you go 1gate > Dt, but that one risks that you go 2gate mass zealot and attack early....
So basically proxy gates are just another type of build order in which you have to micro more.
Actually even if your proxy went bad you can come back fairly easy. It is as Kwark said. You build an economic advantage which will bring you ahead in the long run, and yes 3 probes make a difference in PvP...
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?
Yes, it does. A D+ understands the game better than a D. This is fact. I don't see how you could ever hope to refute this.
No, Nal_Ra understands the game better than most people, even more than people like upmagic, lomo, great, and others, but he will probably be lower rank than them on iccup.
Another way of looking at this is an avid sports fan might understand the sport very well, better than some other players, but will lose to them when they actually play the sport.
There I just refuted it. Understanding the game is part of it. Performing is another.
You still can't claim to understand the game better than a B/A ranked player and only be D..I mean, sure you can probably get to C- on just macroing well, but after that you need to understand the game to get any further.
I can tell you that Jaedong and Flash understand the game better than anyone. I'm sure we can agree on this. I can also tell you that Jaedong's destruction of the ZvZ match-up not too long ago was based on his UNDERSTANDING of the match-up, not just some coin-flip. Sure, someone like Calm can beat him in a series with tricky builds, but Jaedong is better because he understands.
I'm not sure if jaedong knows better calm, I don't think anyone but the progamers could actually say any progamers understand the game better than the other, but I could also say that jaedong has better mutalisk control than calm and that's a huge factor in his victories. But seriously, the reason why I can't get out of D is because I keep running into mines and other things. High ranks might know how to play better than I do, but it doesn't mean they understand the mechanics better.
Take jaehoon for example. He isn't great, but he comes out with great builds that stork and jangbi use to win. Jaehoon understands the game but he just doesn't have the apm needed to win with it. I think you are completely ignoring the fact that I don't have 300+ APM, or even 200+ APM, to work with and that is whats holding me back mostly.
On December 28 2009 14:48 ToN wrote: Well that may vary well be true you need evidence to support your claims. Being B rank on iccup imo is better evidence then if someone was d ranked. Also he's done the strat.... and its also the fact he uses it against b ranked players that imo also supports his cause.
I provided evidence from stork v best vod that stork wasn't able to keep up constant probe production even though he made a cybernetics and that he didn't have too big of a econ advantage after the gateways fell.
That game is not proof that on other maps he wouldn't have enough defense. He doesn't have to build as much defense and thus doesn't so he can power / tech quicker. That's what I think anyway. Imo need better evidence.
On December 28 2009 22:20 RaptorX wrote: After reading Kwark's posts I came to understand what some of the guys said on a thread I made about 2gate ...here are the quotes:
On December 20 2009 02:29 Ricjames wrote: What the hell is cheese. Some retarded player invented the word for people that outsmarted him with some tricky play...It is all brood war and no matter how you play, you play how you want. If you play risky, good player punishes you and bad player get his ass "cheesed" and cry.
I think I retreat my vote. 2gate proxy is not "cheese"... there is no such thing as cheese in BW, it is just a risky build as any other.
A "safe" build is that one in which you micro less knowing that you can stop any early aggression but even on those builds you have risks... 2gate robo > reaver for example risks the fact that your opponent goes 4gate goon, and a 4gate goon guy is risking that you go 1gate > Dt, but that one risks that you go 2gate mass zealot and attack early....
So basically proxy gates are just another type of build order in which you have to micro more.
Actually even if your proxy went bad you can come back fairly easy. It is as Kwark said. You build an economic advantage which will bring you ahead in the long run, and yes 3 probes make a difference in PvP...
However, there is no real hard counter which can be done after scouting a safe build. That is the reason it is called a safe build. If you are going 2 gate proxy in the middle of the map you had better hope that your opponent doesn't scout it right away, otherwise you are done for. That is why proxying gates on the map is cheese, while going 1 gate robo expand is not cheese.
A safe build can rarely be hard countered by an opponent who hasn't scouted it yet, while cheese relies on the opponent to do certain things. For example, if you go 9 pool and he goes 4 pool, you dont even need to scout the 4 pool, you have already hard countered it without even trying. Sure, there are the occasional instance where you will go 1 gate range expand, and he will go 14 CC, which hard counters your safe build... but 14 CC is a cheese too in TvP! It blindly relies on your opponent not scouting it and not choosing to do an even slightly aggressive build from the very start.
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.
You must be kidding me?
When did I raged? You raged when you posted a whole post full of "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK" after Flash roflstomped Jaedong. :-)
My point is perfectly valid, and you didn't bother to discuss it. This discussion doesn't hold any interest as long as use a word which is pejorative, as long as you put a negative value on the idea of cheesing. Everything is legit in starcraft, if not it would be a bad game.
Now, you will make your thread, deciding that 4 pool is a cheese, that cheese is """gay""" and everybody who will get 4 pool will have good reasons to rage because his opponent is gay, it's written now. I say that it is a bad idea, and that you should rather discuss why on earth is there anything bad to open 4 pool, or BBS, or to drone drill your opponent on Troy, or to win a whole serie by bunker rushing your opponent (if he's ad enough not to be able to stop it).
Make a neutral discussion, not the same day that nerd raging over Jaedong being kicked out by Flash who completely outsmarted him, and you'll may have more success. Maybe.
Sigh. Check back and you'll see that I nerd raged over shine beating stork, not flash cheesing jaedong out of osl. Dumbass. Seriously. Just get out, nobody wants you here. You're clearly having no success here.
And I did make a rather neutral thread. Thats why I avoided starting cheese with 8-rax. If I started with 8-rax, then everyone would nerd rage over how gay it is.
On December 28 2009 22:20 RaptorX wrote: Actually even if your proxy went bad you can come back fairly easy. It is as Kwark said. You build an economic advantage which will bring you ahead in the long run, and yes 3 probes make a difference in PvP...
Not really when you are about 3 zealots, almost 4, down you're opponent. You have the slight economic edge but he doesn't need to replenish the army later.
On December 29 2009 05:28 MuffinDude wrote: 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.
On December 29 2009 05:28 MuffinDude wrote: Sigh. Check back and you'll see that I nerd raged over shine beating stork, not flash cheesing jaedong out of osl. Dumbass. Seriously. Just get out, nobody wants you here. You're clearly having no success here.
On December 29 2009 05:28 MuffinDude wrote: 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.
On December 29 2009 05:28 MuffinDude wrote: Sigh. Check back and you'll see that I nerd raged over shine beating stork, not flash cheesing jaedong out of osl. Dumbass. Seriously. Just get out, nobody wants you here. You're clearly having no success here.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Sure man. I am the jackass here. :-)
I made this from jaedong v flash because others were nerd raging over the build, calling it cheese. But if you actually reread the whole thread, I nerd raged over shine v stork. All I wrote was wtf wast that or something like that.
Actually I was talking about proxy gate in the opponents base made with the method that Kwark described and I would say that you could make a hard counter to a safe build after scouting it, thats how 4gate goon works.
I do agree that A safe build can rarely be hard countered by an opponent who hasn't scouted it yet, but i dont think an aggressive build is designed to win right there right now, it is designed to give you a slight advantage at the beginning of the game in which you will build on.
The problem is that lesser skilled players use these aggressive builds just to win at the first try and usually they succeed but when their first attack fails they usually lose and thats why i believe people call it cheese. On the other hand, if a pro-gamer gets his hands on an aggressive build like 4pool while his opponent went 9pool (which they say is a hard counter) I am pretty sure he will have a way to come back out of it, which simply makes me say: "then it is not a cheese build, is just a very aggressive build"
@MuffinDude
I am just a D+/C- player and I can tell you, if your opponent has more zealot than you but he cant kill you with them AND he cant produce at the same pace than you then you have a HUGE advantage, it doesnt seem much to your eyes but as many have said just building constant probes gets you to the C ranks... 3 probes more than your opponent means that you can lay down an extra gate and make zealots faster than him or you can tech quicker than him which is what Kwark tried to explain you.
Just because you are down 2 gates 1 pylon and some zealots doesnt mean you lost, when your gates and pylon where going down you already build gates on your main again, he has 4 zealots and you have 2, but he cant kill you and you have 3 probes more than him and you keep it that way...you are in an advantage, simple as that.
I think builds like that are meant to give you a slight advantage. The problem is that lower ranks use those builds as a "win now" strategy and when it fails they have no clue of what to do next. Thats the reason they lose. Not because the build is all-in but because they really have no idea how to continue and then they really think it is cheese when somebody else do it because on their own experience "that build doesnt work"
I used to think that 2gate vs Zerg was cheese until I started using it, now i see that if the first attack fails that doesnt mean i lost. I can transition fine. I just thought that 2gate proxy was also cheese, but now that I understand the plan then I understand that the strategy is not to win in the first attack and that you can transition fine if you know what you are doing.
edit: -----------
On December 29 2009 05:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 29 2009 05:28 MuffinDude wrote: 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.
On December 29 2009 05:28 MuffinDude wrote: Sigh. Check back and you'll see that I nerd raged over shine beating stork, not flash cheesing jaedong out of osl. Dumbass. Seriously. Just get out, nobody wants you here. You're clearly having no success here.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Sure man. I am the jackass here. :-)
lol OWNED.... Im sorry but i agree with biff in everything he said... who said that "he is not wanted here"?
Actually I was talking about proxy gate in the opponents base made with the method that Kwark described and I would say that you could make a hard counter to a safe build after scouting it, thats how 4gate goon works.
I do agree that A safe build can rarely be hard countered by an opponent who hasn't scouted it yet, but i dont think an aggressive build is designed to win right there right now, it is designed to give you a slight advantage at the beginning of the game in which you will build on.
The problem is that lesser skilled players use these aggressive builds just to win at the first try and usually they succeed but when their first attack fails they usually lose and thats why i believe people call it cheese. On the other hand, if a pro-gamer gets his hands on an aggressive build like 4pool while his opponent went 9pool (which they say is a hard counter) I am pretty sure he will have a way to come back out of it, which simply makes me say: "then it is not a cheese build, is just a very aggressive build"
@MuffinDude
I am just a D+/C- player and I can tell you, if your opponent has more zealot than you but he cant kill you with them AND he cant produce at the same pace than you then you have a HUGE advantage, it doesnt seem much to your eyes but as many have said just building constant probes gets you to the C ranks... 3 probes more than your opponent means that you can lay down an extra gate and make zealots faster than him or you can tech quicker than him which is what Kwark tried to explain you.
Just because you are down 2 gates 1 pylon and some zealots doesnt mean you lost, when your gates and pylon where going down you already build gates on your main again, he has 4 zealots and you have 2, but he cant kill you and you have 3 probes more than him and you keep it that way...you are in an advantage, simple as that.
I think builds like that are meant to give you a slight advantage. The problem is that lower ranks use those builds as a "win now" strategy and when it fails they have no clue of what to do next. Thats the reason they lose. Not because the build is all-in but because they really have no idea how to continue and then they really think it is cheese when somebody else do it because on their own experience "that build doesnt work"
I used to think that 2gate vs Zerg was cheese until I started using it, now i see that if the first attack fails that doesnt mean i lost. I can transition fine. I just thought that 2gate proxy was also cheese, but now that I understand the plan then I understand that the strategy is not to win in the first attack and that you can transition fine if you know what you are doing.
On December 29 2009 05:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 29 2009 05:28 MuffinDude wrote: 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.
On December 29 2009 05:28 MuffinDude wrote: Sigh. Check back and you'll see that I nerd raged over shine beating stork, not flash cheesing jaedong out of osl. Dumbass. Seriously. Just get out, nobody wants you here. You're clearly having no success here.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Sure man. I am the jackass here. :-)
lol OWNED.... Im sorry but i agree with biff in everything he said... who said that "he is not wanted here"?
Sure you can replenish quicker. But the mineral you are spending in the army he is spending on economy. With the bigger army, he can try things like expanding, which you can't because you have no army to defend with. Then it seems even all the sudden doesn't it? In fact wouldn't expanding first suddenly give u an economic advantage? I mean you're not going to sit around with that army advantage are you. Use it to defend the expansion or something. Like stork v best, stork was comfortably able to expand while tech because of the lurker eggs, but normally I can keep a contain on you.
Take pj v bisu on tau cross for example. PJ expanded first and then bisu attacked. Pj brought probes in, lost about 5~6 probes but fended off bisu and got the econ advantage after a while with the extra base even though he was down on probe count. You can do the same, if you can't kill them off then contain and expand.
And biff is not wanted here cause hes going off topic.
You can't simply say "he is spending on economy". That's not how the PvP economy works. Zerg can do that because they can force their opponent to make zerglings while droning themselves in ZvZ but that doesn't happen in PvP. There is almost no flexibility in economic investment. You're both making probes. As for a faster expansion, the army advantage he gains in defending a twin horror gate is insufficient to stop you expanding at the same time. Travel time is a huge factor and it really doesn't take any time at all for the mineral losses to be recouped by a stronger probe count and the disruption to his mining.
Everything you have said in this topic is theorycrafting. I keep countering it with my experience of the game and you say it doesn't make sense to you or you don't understand why it'd work like that. As I tried to explain last night, it doesn't matter that you don't understand why a Protoss can throw away 2 gateways as part of an economic opening and come out ahead if he outmicros his opponent. You don't play Starcraft. You don't have to know things like that. It'd be impressive if you did. But please, please stop arguing. You're not bringing anything new to the table. You're just raising the same theorycrafted bullshit over and over and all it's doing is wasting the time of people who actually do this stuff in actual games.
and thats all what Kwark tried to tell you in about 15 posts...
Now... think about it... just stop and think about it.... first you have an advantage which you should build upon, right? is not an all-in strategy cause you can continue playing even if it failed.
The bad thing that can happen is that he goes econ and matches your economy making the game EVEN... how is that possibly a "cheese"? how is that an all-in???
The worst that can happen is that he outplayed you, out-macroed you or out-microed you... and you know what? that can happen even if you both play the safest build.
Therefore after understanding the information that a B player gave me I came to the conclusion that horror gating is not cheese. Sending 4 rines + almost all your SVCs is "cheese" or "all in" or whatever you want to call it...
That is a win or die strategy even at the highest levels. Not even pro-gamers can come back from that if it fails... do you understand now what Kwark was talking about?
On December 29 2009 06:36 KwarK wrote: MuffinDude.
You can't simply say "he is spending on economy". That's not how the PvP economy works. Zerg can do that because they can force their opponent to make zerglings while droning themselves in ZvZ but that doesn't happen in PvP. There is almost no flexibility in economic investment. You're both making probes. As for a faster expansion, the army advantage he gains in defending a twin horror gate is insufficient to stop you expanding at the same time. Travel time is a huge factor and it really doesn't take any time at all for the mineral losses to be recouped by a stronger probe count and the disruption to his mining.
Everything you have said in this topic is theorycrafting. I keep countering it with my experience of the game and you say it doesn't make sense to you or you don't understand why it'd work like that. As I tried to explain last night, it doesn't matter that you don't understand why a Protoss can throw away 2 gateways as part of an economic opening and come out ahead if he outmicros his opponent. You don't play Starcraft. You don't have to know things like that. It'd be impressive if you did. But please, please stop arguing. You're not bringing anything new to the table. You're just raising the same theorycrafted bullshit over and over and all it's doing is wasting the time of people who actually do this stuff in actual games.
It might not be as obvious as a zerg play style, but protoss can spend time on economy. One example is expanding. While you are making an army to defend yourself, he could be taking an expansion. When you usually take an expansion in the early game, you are losing in army size, but since you are already up on army size, it doesn't matter anymore does it? This is what I mean when you power econ.
Out of all the times you posted, you never discussed how having a bigger army can come to an advantage.
and thats all what Kwark tried to tell you in about 15 posts...
Now... think about it... just stop and think about it.... first you have an advantage which you should build upon, right? is not an all-in strategy cause you can continue playing even if it failed.
The bad thing that can happen is that he goes econ and matches your economy making the game EVEN... how is that possibly a "cheese"? how is that an all-in???
The worst that can happen is that he outplayed you, out-macroed you or out-microed you... and you know what? that can happen even if you both play the safest build.
Therefore after understanding the information that a B player gave me I came to the conclusion that horror gating is not cheese. Sending 4 rines + almost all your SVCs is "cheese" or "all in" or whatever you want to call it...
That is a win or die strategy even at the highest levels. Not even pro-gamers can come back from that if it fails... do you understand now what Kwark was talking about?
You can say this about many different builds that were once considered as cheese. I just see this build as risky. That can change the flow of the game.
yes and i just came to that understanding after reading the quotes that i posted and reading Kwark's thoughts on this.
I also believed a lot of BO's where "cheese" but if you get to understand the purpose of that aggression then it is not cheese anymore.
He didnt talk about armies because he was trying to make you understand why horror gating was not cheese, and his points are valid. About army size and expanding vs making units i think that is another type of topic.
I personally think this thread is going to fail not because the idea is bad but because people wont agree with us just because they dont simply get it. Everybody will continue thinking that proxy 2gate is "cheese" or that 8-rax is "gay" even though high ranked people will try to explain in detail some high level complicated abstract part of the game that they understand and thats why they are good players.
I think at the end of the day you will still put 2gate proxy, 4pool, 8-rax, BBS and others in the list of cheese even though we can really explain you how they are not all-in and therefor not "cheese" and then this topic would be useless because people already think those are "cheese builds".
My stand is that there is no "cheese" in BW.
A side question though... is there any B-higher player that complains about cheese and imbalance??
On December 29 2009 07:04 RaptorX wrote: yes and i just came to that understanding after reading the quotes that i posted and reading Kwark's thoughts on this.
I also believed a lot of BO's where "cheese" but if you get to understand the purpose of that aggression then it is not cheese anymore.
He didnt talk about armies because he was trying to make you understand why horror gating was not cheese, and his points are valid. About army size and expanding vs making units i think that is another type of topic.
I personally think this thread is going to fail not because the idea is bad but because people wont agree with us just because they dont simply get it. Everybody will continue thinking that proxy 2gate is "cheese" or that 8-rax is "gay" even though high ranked people will try to explain in detail some high level complicated abstract part of the game that they understand and thats why they are good players.
I think at the end of the day you will still put 2gate proxy, 4pool, 8-rax, BBS and others in the list of cheese even though we can really explain you how they are not all-in and therefor not "cheese" and then this topic would be useless because people already think those are "cheese builds".
My stand is that there is no "cheese" in BW.
A side question though... is there any B-higher player that complains about cheese and imbalance??
I really want to know that.
No. You guys are sort of convincing me that it isn't a cheese. But I want to know what you are going to do with the army difference. With the army advantage, I would just contain -> expand -> better econ -> win game.
As I said many times, rank shouldn't really be put into this discussing. As Nal_ra probably understands the game better than majority of the progamers nowadays but will be lower than them on iccup ranking.
On December 29 2009 07:04 RaptorX wrote: yes and i just came to that understanding after reading the quotes that i posted and reading Kwark's thoughts on this.
I also believed a lot of BO's where "cheese" but if you get to understand the purpose of that aggression then it is not cheese anymore.
He didnt talk about armies because he was trying to make you understand why horror gating was not cheese, and his points are valid. About army size and expanding vs making units i think that is another type of topic.
I personally think this thread is going to fail not because the idea is bad but because people wont agree with us just because they dont simply get it. Everybody will continue thinking that proxy 2gate is "cheese" or that 8-rax is "gay" even though high ranked people will try to explain in detail some high level complicated abstract part of the game that they understand and thats why they are good players.
I think at the end of the day you will still put 2gate proxy, 4pool, 8-rax, BBS and others in the list of cheese even though we can really explain you how they are not all-in and therefor not "cheese" and then this topic would be useless because people already think those are "cheese builds".
My stand is that there is no "cheese" in BW.
A side question though... is there any B-higher player that complains about cheese and imbalance??
I really want to know that.
No. You guys are sort of convincing me that it isn't a cheese. But I want to know what you are going to do with the army difference. With the army advantage, I would just contain -> expand -> better econ -> win game.
As I said many times, rank shouldn't really be put into this discussing. As Nal_ra probably understands the game better than majority of the progamers nowadays but will be lower than them on iccup ranking.
Nal_rA was a progamer for years. You don't play Starcraft. You aren't Nal_rA.
muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons. And trust me, the obs will be warping in very shortly too, about the time your expansion gets up after you gain map control.
You might get out of the contain but his expo will be up and running boy.
On December 29 2009 07:04 RaptorX wrote: yes and i just came to that understanding after reading the quotes that i posted and reading Kwark's thoughts on this.
I also believed a lot of BO's where "cheese" but if you get to understand the purpose of that aggression then it is not cheese anymore.
He didnt talk about armies because he was trying to make you understand why horror gating was not cheese, and his points are valid. About army size and expanding vs making units i think that is another type of topic.
I personally think this thread is going to fail not because the idea is bad but because people wont agree with us just because they dont simply get it. Everybody will continue thinking that proxy 2gate is "cheese" or that 8-rax is "gay" even though high ranked people will try to explain in detail some high level complicated abstract part of the game that they understand and thats why they are good players.
I think at the end of the day you will still put 2gate proxy, 4pool, 8-rax, BBS and others in the list of cheese even though we can really explain you how they are not all-in and therefor not "cheese" and then this topic would be useless because people already think those are "cheese builds".
My stand is that there is no "cheese" in BW.
A side question though... is there any B-higher player that complains about cheese and imbalance??
I really want to know that.
No. You guys are sort of convincing me that it isn't a cheese. But I want to know what you are going to do with the army difference. With the army advantage, I would just contain -> expand -> better econ -> win game.
As I said many times, rank shouldn't really be put into this discussing. As Nal_ra probably understands the game better than majority of the progamers nowadays but will be lower than them on iccup ranking.
Nal_rA was a progamer for years. You don't play Starcraft. You aren't Nal_rA.
My argument still holds that rank doesn't always mean better knowledge doesn't it? I'm not nal_ra but i certainly do play the game or is this how all higher rank people view lower rank people, with ignorance and disrespect? Then should we really listen to people with higher rank if their not even going to show us of lower rank any respect.
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
And rank doesn't always mean better knowledge as I said many times. In this case, kwark probably has more knowledge than I do, but not in all cases higher rank = more knowledge. Like a scientist might know how to efficiently run more than others, but he will never be faster than Usain Bolt. Thats like comparing D- and a A+. D- knows more, but can't perform as well A+.
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
edit: --------
I'm not nal_ra but i certainly do play the game or is this how all higher rank people view lower rank people, with ignorance and disrespect?
Nobody here is talking to you with ignorance or disrespect. If you feel disrespected is just because you are misunderstanding the tone in which Kwark was talking at the beginning even though he surely got annoyed with repeating something "basic" to you. I quote basic because it might be basic for him but we the "lower ranked players" dont understand some topics due to our lack of experience.
And yes rank usually means more experience and more knowledge. Nal_ra was the highest rank you could think of a time ago so yeah that guy cant compare to todays standards but he is in the "high ranks" Thats exactly why he knows so much about the game.
I would actually ask you for your age but that is irrelevant at this point.
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have. Then you just lost your 3 probe econ advantage. And I'm 18. Don't know why this has to do anything with this.
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally. Now why don't you stop acting all high and mighty with your B and answer this, in any of your games, did they get a contain on you and expand after they deflected this attack?
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have.
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally.
With this post you just showed that you dont have the minimum idea of what are you talking about.
If i play correctly the time between your expa and mine is not going to be more than 20-30 seconds dude and by that time i have not only surpassed your army but i am ahead on tech... I think thats what we call an advantage...
the age question was to try to measure your mental maturity. I see that you get hot-headed quickly and thats why you think there is somebody "talking down" to you.
If you take a minute and understand that B rank means more experience then you will just be little bit more humble and try to get the point he is trying to make.
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have. Then you just lost your 3 probe econ advantage. And I'm 18. Don't know why this has to do anything with this.
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally. Now why don't you stop acting all high and mighty with your B and answer this, in any of your games, did they get a contain on you and expand after they deflected this attack?
For about 30 seconds. It depends on the flow. If you gas steal and run your last zealots out you can hold your ramp with them (3 at the top vs 2 at the top) and then force them out with your much faster dragoons. Alternatively you can make 3 gateways in your main and force them out with your more zealots. You're just not understanding how little it hurts you to lose a pylon and 2 gateways early.
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have.
On December 29 2009 07:44 RaptorX wrote: the age question was to try to measure your mental maturity. I see that you get hot-headed quickly and thats why you think there is somebody "talking down" to you.
If you take a minute and understand that B rank means more experience then you will just be little bit more humble and try to get the point he is trying to make.
Yes I do respect his experience, but is wrong to ask questions and clarify things? And kwark also gets hot-headed pretty quickly. Does that mean that he isn't mentally mature either?
On December 29 2009 07:37 KwarK wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:35 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally.
With this post you just showed that you dont have the minimum idea of what are you talking about.
If i play correctly the time between your expa and mine is not going to be more than 20-30 seconds dude and by that time i have not only surpassed your army but i am ahead on tech... I think thats what we call an advantage...
Dude wtf? You can't possibly tech to dts so fast. I mean if the timing is right, I should be putting down my nexus when your citadel is about halfway done. Thats about 30 seconds after I deflect your attack. Then you have to warp in your archives and then make dts from your gateways. Thats more than 20~30 seconds. While doing this, you probably won't have enough minerals to get zealots to bust out with just pure zealots.
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have. Then you just lost your 3 probe econ advantage. And I'm 18. Don't know why this has to do anything with this.
On December 29 2009 07:37 KwarK wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:35 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally. Now why don't you stop acting all high and mighty with your B and answer this, in any of your games, did they get a contain on you and expand after they deflected this attack?
For about 30 seconds. It depends on the flow. If you gas steal and run your last zealots out you can hold your ramp with them (3 at the top vs 2 at the top) and then force them out with your much faster dragoons. Alternatively you can make 3 gateways in your main and force them out with your more zealots. You're just not understanding how little it hurts you to lose a pylon and 2 gateways early.
Wait, I'm not understanding how you're getting 2 zealots only after deflecting the attack. After deflecting the attack, best had 4 zealots and probably 2 more making. Given that stork got relatively late gateway because it was plasma, he probably wouldn't be able to make more than 2 zealots during this time he drives you out and travels to your base. So its now 3 v 4 with 2 more zealots coming in while you probably have 1 zealot or a goon and a gateway producing. By this time, I should already have a nexus warping in anytime soon.
If you read my post, I specifically stated that stork would of had 2 more zealot if it wasn't on plasma. It seems as if you're wasting my time by ignoring my questions and not reading my posts carefully enough. So how do you go from 4 zealots to 2 anyways?
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have.
On December 29 2009 07:37 KwarK wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:35 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally.
With this post you just showed that you dont have the minimum idea of what are you talking about.
If i play correctly the time between your expa and mine is not going to be more than 20-30 seconds dude and by that time i have not only surpassed your army but i am ahead on tech... I think thats what we call an advantage...
Dude wtf? You can't possibly tech to dts so fast. I mean if the timing is right, I should be putting down my nexus when your citadel is about halfway done. Thats about 30 seconds after I deflect your attack. Then you have to warp in your archives and then make dts from your gateways. Thats more than 20~30 seconds. While doing this, you probably won't have enough minerals to get zealots to bust out with just pure zealots.
ok lets see...
you deflected my attack, and you made few zealots while expanding. I just made enough zealots to not let you in my base and rushed to dts, i will kick you out of my nat mainly with the dts and expand.
The difference between your expa and mine is not going to be that much but i am ahead in tech. prolly the seconds count was a mistake on my part cause i just did it on the top of my head but the point is that I still have an advantage...
I can switch to templars + storm very quickly and your numerical superiority is going to mean nothing... The point is I dont lose my advantage.
It is not a cheese build, period. People wont agree but it is not.
On December 29 2009 07:54 MuffinDude wrote: If you read my post, I specifically stated that stork would of had 2 more zealot if it wasn't on plasma.
And you are answering yourself... thats why Kwark gets upset and you feel "talked down"... dude you have to calm down and try to UNDERSTAND. He already explained those things to you the problem is that you want to be right, and you are jumping information. I guess thats it.
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have.
On December 29 2009 07:37 KwarK wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:35 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally.
With this post you just showed that you dont have the minimum idea of what are you talking about.
If i play correctly the time between your expa and mine is not going to be more than 20-30 seconds dude and by that time i have not only surpassed your army but i am ahead on tech... I think thats what we call an advantage...
Dude wtf? You can't possibly tech to dts so fast. I mean if the timing is right, I should be putting down my nexus when your citadel is about halfway done. Thats about 30 seconds after I deflect your attack. Then you have to warp in your archives and then make dts from your gateways. Thats more than 20~30 seconds. While doing this, you probably won't have enough minerals to get zealots to bust out with just pure zealots.
ok lets see...
you deflected my attack, and you made few zealots while expanding. I just made enough zealots to not let you in my base and rushed to dts, i will kick you out of my nat mainly with the dts and expand.
The difference between your expa and mine is not going to be that much but i am ahead in tech. prolly the seconds count was a mistake on my part cause i just did it on the top of my head but the point is that I still have an advantage...
I can switch to templars + storm very quickly and your numerical superiority is going to mean nothing... The point is I dont lose my advantage.
It is not a cheese build, period. People wont agree but it is not.
Wait, I'm not understanding how you're getting 2 zealots only after deflecting the attack. After deflecting the attack, best had 4 zealots and probably 2 more making.
On December 29 2009 07:54 MuffinDude wrote: If you read my post, I specifically stated that stork would of had 2 more zealot if it wasn't on plasma. It seems as if you're wasting my time by ignoring my questions and not reading my posts carefully enough. So how do you go from 4 zealots to 2 anyways?
And you are answering yourself... thats why Kwark gets upset and you feel "talked down"... dude you have to calm down and try to UNDERSTAND. He already explained those things to you the problem is that you want to be right, and you are jumping information. I guess thats it.
Well you're clearly underestimating the +1 expo advantage. Its much bigger than a +3 probe advantage. With +1 expo advantage, I can have a bigger army while catching up to you in tech. In many pvp progames. The person who expands first usually has a huge advantage as long as he holds. The person who didn't expand usually have faster tech, which is basically the same situation here.
And how do you know that I'm not feeling "talked down" but just upset that kwark is constantly making references to my older posts when I'm asking something else now? I'm really upset that he is just completely ignoring me. I'm also annoyed that he is just going I'm higher rank than you, what I say counts. Yest what he says stands firmer than what I say, but does this mean he can completely ignore what I say?
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have.
On December 29 2009 07:37 KwarK wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:35 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally.
With this post you just showed that you dont have the minimum idea of what are you talking about.
If i play correctly the time between your expa and mine is not going to be more than 20-30 seconds dude and by that time i have not only surpassed your army but i am ahead on tech... I think thats what we call an advantage...
Dude wtf? You can't possibly tech to dts so fast. I mean if the timing is right, I should be putting down my nexus when your citadel is about halfway done. Thats about 30 seconds after I deflect your attack. Then you have to warp in your archives and then make dts from your gateways. Thats more than 20~30 seconds. While doing this, you probably won't have enough minerals to get zealots to bust out with just pure zealots.
ok lets see...
you deflected my attack, and you made few zealots while expanding. I just made enough zealots to not let you in my base and rushed to dts, i will kick you out of my nat mainly with the dts and expand.
The difference between your expa and mine is not going to be that much but i am ahead in tech. prolly the seconds count was a mistake on my part cause i just did it on the top of my head but the point is that I still have an advantage...
I can switch to templars + storm very quickly and your numerical superiority is going to mean nothing... The point is I dont lose my advantage.
It is not a cheese build, period. People wont agree but it is not.
Wait, I'm not understanding how you're getting 2 zealots only after deflecting the attack. After deflecting the attack, best had 4 zealots and probably 2 more making.
On December 29 2009 07:54 MuffinDude wrote: If you read my post, I specifically stated that stork would of had 2 more zealot if it wasn't on plasma. It seems as if you're wasting my time by ignoring my questions and not reading my posts carefully enough. So how do you go from 4 zealots to 2 anyways?
And you are answering yourself... thats why Kwark gets upset and you feel "talked down"... dude you have to calm down and try to UNDERSTAND. He already explained those things to you the problem is that you want to be right, and you are jumping information. I guess thats it.
Well you're clearly underestimating the +1 expo advantage. Its much bigger than a +3 probe advantage. With +1 expo advantage, I can have a bigger army while catching up to you in tech. In many pvp progames. The person who expands first usually has a huge advantage as long as he holds. The person who didn't expand usually have faster tech, which is basically the same situation here.
And how do you know that I'm not feeling "talked down" but just upset that kwark is constantly making references to my older posts when I'm asking something else now? I'm really upset that he is just completely ignoring me. I'm also annoyed that he is just going I'm higher rank than you, what I say counts. Yest what he says stands firmer than what I say, but does this mean he can completely ignore what I say?
So you just came to the conclusion that:
1) The person who expands first usually has a huge advantage as long as he holds.
and
2) The person who didn't expand usually have faster tech, which is basically the same situation here.
Which is part of a normal game, which should already tell you that that particular BO is not cheese because you can arrive there, which is what Kwark explained and I understood and makes sense, which should make this particular topic over (whether you put it on the cheese build list or not) but some how you still dont get it and try to keep going which annoyed Kwark and is starting to annoy me already.
First you stated that somebody was talking down to you thats the reason i mentioned it, and second he "ignores" you because he already answered that question and is telling you to go and read HIS posts not yours...
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have.
On December 29 2009 07:37 KwarK wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:35 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally.
With this post you just showed that you dont have the minimum idea of what are you talking about.
If i play correctly the time between your expa and mine is not going to be more than 20-30 seconds dude and by that time i have not only surpassed your army but i am ahead on tech... I think thats what we call an advantage...
Dude wtf? You can't possibly tech to dts so fast. I mean if the timing is right, I should be putting down my nexus when your citadel is about halfway done. Thats about 30 seconds after I deflect your attack. Then you have to warp in your archives and then make dts from your gateways. Thats more than 20~30 seconds. While doing this, you probably won't have enough minerals to get zealots to bust out with just pure zealots.
ok lets see...
you deflected my attack, and you made few zealots while expanding. I just made enough zealots to not let you in my base and rushed to dts, i will kick you out of my nat mainly with the dts and expand.
The difference between your expa and mine is not going to be that much but i am ahead in tech. prolly the seconds count was a mistake on my part cause i just did it on the top of my head but the point is that I still have an advantage...
I can switch to templars + storm very quickly and your numerical superiority is going to mean nothing... The point is I dont lose my advantage.
It is not a cheese build, period. People wont agree but it is not.
Wait, I'm not understanding how you're getting 2 zealots only after deflecting the attack. After deflecting the attack, best had 4 zealots and probably 2 more making.
On December 29 2009 07:54 MuffinDude wrote: If you read my post, I specifically stated that stork would of had 2 more zealot if it wasn't on plasma. It seems as if you're wasting my time by ignoring my questions and not reading my posts carefully enough. So how do you go from 4 zealots to 2 anyways?
And you are answering yourself... thats why Kwark gets upset and you feel "talked down"... dude you have to calm down and try to UNDERSTAND. He already explained those things to you the problem is that you want to be right, and you are jumping information. I guess thats it.
Well you're clearly underestimating the +1 expo advantage. Its much bigger than a +3 probe advantage. With +1 expo advantage, I can have a bigger army while catching up to you in tech. In many pvp progames. The person who expands first usually has a huge advantage as long as he holds. The person who didn't expand usually have faster tech, which is basically the same situation here.
And how do you know that I'm not feeling "talked down" but just upset that kwark is constantly making references to my older posts when I'm asking something else now? I'm really upset that he is just completely ignoring me. I'm also annoyed that he is just going I'm higher rank than you, what I say counts. Yest what he says stands firmer than what I say, but does this mean he can completely ignore what I say?
first because you stated so, and second he "ignores" you because he already answered that question and is telling you to go and read HIS posts not yours...
so you just came to the conclusion that 1) The person who expands first usually has a huge advantage as long as he holds.
and
2) The person who didn't expand usually have faster tech, which is basically the same situation here.
Which is part of a normal game, which should already tell you that that particular BO is not cheese because you can arrive there, which is what Kwark explained and I understood and makes sense, which should make this particular topic over (where you put it on the cheese build list or not) but some how you still dont get it and try to keep going which annoyed Kwark and is starting to annoy me already.
My point is that with this build, after deflecting the attack, you can expand and hold much easier than just standard opening with the army size, expo then try to hold. In normal pvp, you usually can't create a contain so early in the game, but you can here because you'll have a bigger army right from the get go and with this bigger army, I can hold my expo much easier against your higher tech army.
He also didn't answer me why there will be only 2 zealots to contain when best had 4 in that situation. There was nowhere in his post that said why this occurs.
But seriously? Does you getting it somehow makes topic over? You aren't god, what you think isn't what others think. We first argued about whether this build would get you an economic advantage, we came to a yes, then we talked about whether you can hold, and we came to a yes again, but I want to talk about the follow up of this build now, which he clearly is avoiding. My thoughts are if this is a viable build, why don't progamers use is more often? One time it was basically because it was on plasma, so its rather map specific build that stork used, but besides that, only bisu used this build. There must be a catch to this build that we are missing.
On December 29 2009 07:20 RaptorX wrote: muffin... what if i tech to dts faster than you? you are going for an expa so you are going to die if you dont have cannons + you dont have obs so you barely can go out of your base...
what if i go reavers instead? your contain will be for nothing or i can just go and harass... ok what if I simply add more gateways? your "army superiority" will go to shit in a few minutes because I have better economy on 1 base while you thought it was ok to expand and dint make more units...
dude you dont understand the point of having 3 more probes... or even having an economical advantage.
Lmao. I do know that having 3 more probes doesn't mean that you'll get out dts faster than he get cannons or you'll get reavers before he gets dragoons.
The point of the dts is to keep you on your base because you dont have obs while i expand myself and build upon my advantage.
The point of reavers is to brake a "contain" because I dont know if you believe it or not but i would get goons before or at the same time as you are, but i have 3 more probes than you...
Well I think i have to stop arguing, you need more game experience to understand what kwark meant, and what I in my limited knowledge is trying to pass to you.
in short: If you know how to play and at the same time have the ability to execute a proxy 2gate build correctly it is NOT an all-in build. If on the other hand you have the knowledge but not the apm or havent practice enough or you dont have the knowledge even though you have the apm then this build is seriously an all-in build.
I think you and I fit in the later category, we just got the information but we dont have enough experience with that build to make it work. And lots of people are in that stage. So yeah go ahead and put it as a "cheese" "not-working" "all-in" "gay" strategy that will lead to you not being able to pass C ranks on ICCup.
What I meant is you get DT to break out of contain, but I'll have an expo running much longer than you have.
On December 29 2009 07:37 KwarK wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:35 MuffinDude wrote:
On December 29 2009 07:32 Ilikestarcraft wrote: i think rank does mean better knowledge when its a d player arguing with a b player.
Sure, but does that mean I'm arguing without a case? No.
You said you played 6 games a season. Everything you've said in this topic has been speculation. You've been arguing against experience with theorycraft and it has been evident to me over and over that you have no understanding of the matters. What your D rank means is you should learn when to drop it.
Thats because I also play tons of non official games with my friends via lan and stuff. I just don't have the time to play ladder game sc normally.
With this post you just showed that you dont have the minimum idea of what are you talking about.
If i play correctly the time between your expa and mine is not going to be more than 20-30 seconds dude and by that time i have not only surpassed your army but i am ahead on tech... I think thats what we call an advantage...
Dude wtf? You can't possibly tech to dts so fast. I mean if the timing is right, I should be putting down my nexus when your citadel is about halfway done. Thats about 30 seconds after I deflect your attack. Then you have to warp in your archives and then make dts from your gateways. Thats more than 20~30 seconds. While doing this, you probably won't have enough minerals to get zealots to bust out with just pure zealots.
ok lets see...
you deflected my attack, and you made few zealots while expanding. I just made enough zealots to not let you in my base and rushed to dts, i will kick you out of my nat mainly with the dts and expand.
The difference between your expa and mine is not going to be that much but i am ahead in tech. prolly the seconds count was a mistake on my part cause i just did it on the top of my head but the point is that I still have an advantage...
I can switch to templars + storm very quickly and your numerical superiority is going to mean nothing... The point is I dont lose my advantage.
It is not a cheese build, period. People wont agree but it is not.
Wait, I'm not understanding how you're getting 2 zealots only after deflecting the attack. After deflecting the attack, best had 4 zealots and probably 2 more making.
On December 29 2009 07:54 MuffinDude wrote: If you read my post, I specifically stated that stork would of had 2 more zealot if it wasn't on plasma. It seems as if you're wasting my time by ignoring my questions and not reading my posts carefully enough. So how do you go from 4 zealots to 2 anyways?
And you are answering yourself... thats why Kwark gets upset and you feel "talked down"... dude you have to calm down and try to UNDERSTAND. He already explained those things to you the problem is that you want to be right, and you are jumping information. I guess thats it.
Well you're clearly underestimating the +1 expo advantage. Its much bigger than a +3 probe advantage. With +1 expo advantage, I can have a bigger army while catching up to you in tech. In many pvp progames. The person who expands first usually has a huge advantage as long as he holds. The person who didn't expand usually have faster tech, which is basically the same situation here.
And how do you know that I'm not feeling "talked down" but just upset that kwark is constantly making references to my older posts when I'm asking something else now? I'm really upset that he is just completely ignoring me. I'm also annoyed that he is just going I'm higher rank than you, what I say counts. Yest what he says stands firmer than what I say, but does this mean he can completely ignore what I say?
first because you stated so, and second he "ignores" you because he already answered that question and is telling you to go and read HIS posts not yours...
so you just came to the conclusion that 1) The person who expands first usually has a huge advantage as long as he holds.
and
2) The person who didn't expand usually have faster tech, which is basically the same situation here.
Which is part of a normal game, which should already tell you that that particular BO is not cheese because you can arrive there, which is what Kwark explained and I understood and makes sense, which should make this particular topic over (where you put it on the cheese build list or not) but some how you still dont get it and try to keep going which annoyed Kwark and is starting to annoy me already.
My point is that with this build, after deflecting the attack, you can expand and hold much easier than just standard opening with the army size, expo then try to hold. In normal pvp, you usually can't create a contain so early in the game, but you can here because you'll have a bigger army right from the get go and with this bigger army, I can hold my expo much easier against your higher tech army.
He also didn't answer me why there will be only 2 zealots to contain when best had 4 in that situation. There was nowhere in his post that said why this occurs.
But seriously? Does you getting it somehow makes topic over? You aren't god, what you think isn't what others think. We first argued about whether this build would get you an economic advantage, we came to a yes, then we talked about whether you can hold, and we came to a yes again, but I want to talk about the follow up of this build now, which he clearly is avoiding. My thoughts are if this is a viable build, why don't progamers use is more often? One time it was basically because it was on plasma, so its rather map specific build that stork used, but besides that, only bisu used this build. There must be a catch to this build that we are missing.
Is not that now that i get it is over, what i meant is that he thought (and honestly me too) that with the information that he provided you already got it.
The original question is "is 2gate proxy a cheese BO?" we argued that is not. Now you want specific information about mid-game that is totally player dependent and map dependent.
it is true that after the attack you can expand early and of course you can create a mini contain that early in the game, but we argue (specially kwark with experience backing him) that it doesnt mean that you lost the game, and you actually can play normally retaining a little advantage and in the worst case allowing the game to go even. Which if you ask me is a clear indicative of a normal BO.
Riskier than other BO's? yes... Not everybody can do it? exactly... Is it map dependent? probably... is it cheese? NO.
He already pointed out that you have to understand that losing a gate and pylon is not as bad as it might look like. It wont lose you the game, and it wont give him an advantage, it actually gives YOU 3 probes advantage that you should know what to do with them. Thats where experience comes in to play, he knows what to do with them, you and me... dont. Thats why he is a B player and we arent.
I agree with you with the question of why these builds are not used more often but i guess it was Kwark or Biff who stated something about it but then you will have to go back on the thread and re-read which is what he is telling you the whole time, because the answers are already here in the topic but you insist in making them again.
Please summarize the whole point that kwark is making because after reading it couple times this is what I'm getting: You will get an econ advantage. You will get a tech advantage. If it fails, then you will most likely lose like many other builds. If you don't do as much damage as possible, then you will only be a bit behind.
I view cheese as something that will determine the flow of who is winning. This build if it doesn't do enough damage, will put you significantly behind for midgame because he will most likely have that early expo, and in many pvp, whoever have their expansion first will most likely win the game. This is what I'm getting to. Although you probably won't come out too far behind after failing, you will be put pretty far behind during mid-game because of this build.
So summarizing my point: If it doesn't do enough, then you go down a base. Then you try busting their natural with superior tech, but it isn't as easy as busting their natural after a standard build because they will have about equal army size as you. That is why I think this build is a cheese. It sets you up for bad position going into midgame.
As I sidenote: I'm not understanding your views, but we are talking about the transition to midgame and we have not actually talked about it too much. And I'm not hating you guys either.
Oh I would love to play a game with you to try it out, but theres a problem with the disk drive and its not reading any cds right now.
On December 29 2009 08:36 MuffinDude wrote: Please summarize the whole point that kwark is making because after reading it couple times this is what I'm getting: You will get an econ advantage. You will get a tech advantage. If it fails, then you will most likely lose like many other builds. If you don't do as much damage as possible, then you will only be a bit behind.
I view cheese as something that will determine the flow of who is winning. This build if it doesn't do enough damage, will put you significantly behind for midgame because he will most likely have that early expo, and in many pvp, whoever have their expansion first will most likely win the game. This is what I'm getting to. Although you probably won't come out too far behind after failing, you will be put pretty far behind during mid-game because of this build.
So summarizing my point: If it doesn't do enough, then you go down a base. Then you try busting their natural with superior tech, but it isn't as easy as busting their natural after a standard build because they will have about equal army size as you. That is why I think this build is a cheese. It sets you up for bad position going into midgame.
As I sidenote: I'm not understanding your views, but we are talking about the transition to midgame and we have not actually talked about it too much. And I'm not hating you guys either.
Oh I would love to play a game with you to try it out, but theres a problem with the disk drive and its not reading any cds right now.
That is an incorrect view of cheese, because technically If i have better EAPM (whatever that means) which determines the flow of who is winning then i would be cheesing, or If i have more experience on the game which also determines the flow of who is winning is cheesing, which you know it isnt like that.
The most neutral definition of cheese that i have seen in TL is defining it as an all-in strategy in which if you dont do enough damage in the first blow YOU LOSE THE GAME. Basically what they are saying is that cheese and all-in is basically the same.
There are some other definitions, for me the best was this one:
I applied this definition to starcraft, seeing what defines a strategy that is inelegant/has no skill. The following are elements that I think show you are aren't trying to outplay your opponent but simply trying to get a cheap win:
1) Commit to it before scouting 2) High-risk strategy 3) Main strength is element of surprise 4) Leaves you at a large disadvantage if stopped
So I think these elements are what define cheesy strategies.
Boxer 3-0 over yellow was not cheese. Bunker rush actually fails the cheese definition on all counts! Boxer's all in rine+scv rush only fits the definition at point 4. He had already scouted at that point, and just went for the quickest win.
That's not different than 2 hatch muta compared to 3 hatch muta: if you don't make damage, you lose, as your eceonomy is weaker than the terran's one. So... Is 2 hatch muta cheese?
Let's check if 2 hat muta is cheese:
1) commit to before scouting? -> no 2) high-risk strategy? -> no 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> no
It seems it's not. Yes, you can debate on some of them but let's compare to four pool
1) commit to before scouting? -> definitely yes 2) high-risk strategy? -> definitely yes 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely yes 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely yes
Now, I just lost a game where I succesfully blocked a 4 pool. So your definition is wrong again. 4 pool is not less viable than 12 hatch, you just need to make damage because you invested early game into an agressive playstyle.
Honestly if you scout a four pool and micro intelligently, he will be so much at a disadvantage it's not even funny. If you kill the last zergling with your last SCV so you have one SCV left I don't think you really defended the four pool. You actually died to it, just decided to play out instead of gg immediately.
Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
So even though is a risky build it is not cheese if correctly executed. What I argue is that most of us are not in the level to execute that build correctly which makes it an all-in build because if you dont know what to do after you proxy gated then you are pretty much screwed.
But if you know what to do and you do it correctly it simply works as a normal econ BO with a little bit more micro.
Now; my position is that just because of the fact that after you shutdown my gates and pylon I am still able to go to mid-game therefore this build is not cheese. You want to talk about if when you enter mid-game you enter with a disadvantage or not but that is a very extensive and very dependent topic because that really depends on execution, how well did you follow up, Player skills and other things like any other BO.
I am telling you that if you and me both do the same BO and you are just slightly better than me you will win. Thats exactly the same way proxy gate will turn out in the end.
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
On December 28 2009 10:44 KwarK wrote: Yes I have. Many, many times. Like when I said "What happens if you fast expand but don't mine". The assumption of this build is that against an opponent of equal skill you will disrupt their econ enough. If I used this build against a player who reacted optimally and outmicroed me significantly I'd be behind. If I used this build against a player who reacted optimally and microed poorly I'd be ahead. If we were of equal skill we'd be roughly even. As with any build. The assumption of the build is that you micro it competently, just as the assumption of 2 hat muta builds in ZvT is that you know how to muta harass. Obviously against a significantly better player you'll come out behind but that is the case with every build and is not a problem with the build but the execution.
Thats what he said and thats what i believe...
If I am worse player than you then you will win no matter of what BO we use. Thats why progamers will kick my ass no matter how many times i play with them.
I am am a better player than you then this BO gives me an economic advantage in which i will build upon to win.
If we have exactly the same abilities then this game will be roughly EVEN. So doesnt matter how you see it this BO is not cheese, and no you wont be in a disadvantage in mid-game... IF YOU KNOW HOW TO PLAY IT.
On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote: Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no.
On December 26 2009 06:38 MuffinDude wrote: Ok, I just added the situation. Its Pvp and the proxy building is halfway and beyond on the map.
Er there are exceptions to this rule right? Proxy gate in your opponent base can be an economic opening.
What how? If it fails you lose a gateway and a pylon. Thats huge.
muffin note that Kwark is not the only one who states that proxy 2gate on opponents base is an economic BO... That was on the first pages of the thread, and since then you didnt understand why that build is econ instead of all-in.
I bet fontong understand the underlying plan of this build. And yes it is like any other BO.
Cheesy: "Of poor quality; shoddy." or "Inferior or cheap; chintzy." (www.dictionary.com)
Thus, the term cheese should apply to anything that shouldn't work, but gets a win regardless. Like when a newb proxy gates in the worst spot possible, and the superior player doesn't scout there because it would be such a bad place to proxy. The term "cheese" really is just a complaint to mean "That was stupid and shouldn't have worked, but because it was so stupid and easy to do, you actually got away with it. You bastard."
Couldn't we come up with some more helpful and precise terms to describe unorthodox or risky strategies, instead of just lumping them all into the category of "shitty, cheap newbplay".
Side note: I've often considered something "cheesy" when it's all my opponent is capable of. When all he can do are shitty tricks and ultimately has nothing else to back it up, emphasizing how cheap and inferior his skills are, I consider him a cheesy player. But that's just about judging a specific player. The cheese itself, the actual strategy or tactic in the game, should be judged by its effectiveness and a risk/reward type measurement, like harassment or hidden expansions.
On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote: Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no.
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it?
2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong.
3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it.
4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage....
Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand.
Seriously. That's so arbitrary that it's funny. You are talking out of nothing. Then a 2 factory opening is a 25% cheese because it leaves you at a big disadvantge if defended. Do you always reason with theses kind of awful decadent pseudo cartesianist sophisms?
So, ladies and gentlemen (drums)
2 port gate tvz is 38,6% a cheese, considering the risk taking, the scouting element and all the shit.
Wait... should I nerd rage or not? Let me look at my calculator.
Oh! I have an idea! When you get cheesed at 75% you should nerd rage at 75% too. If it's on the map on the week, you can add 6%, and if you are higher rank than your opponent, you can multiply by 1,2 per superior rank and substract 2% if you are at D level. And if you were born on a month starting with S, you can also add 3% on raging.
PS: By the way, I understand that you don't want me on this thread, but since I am a member of this forum and as mods apparently still think that I am decent member enough not to get perma ban, you don't have any legitimity to tell me to shut up. :-)
On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote: Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no.
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it?
2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong.
3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it.
4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage....
Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand.
1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it?
2. hey you said yes yourself here.
3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way.
4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage
On December 29 2009 09:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Seriously. That's so arbitrary that it's funny. You are talking out of nothing. Then a 2 factory opening is a 25% cheese because it leaves you at a big disadvantge if defended. Do you always reason with theses kind of awful decadent pseudo cartesianist sophisms?
So, ladies and gentlemen (drums)
2 port gate tvz is 38,6% a cheese, considering the risk taking, the scouting element and all the shit.
Wait... should I nerd rage or not? Let me look at my calculator.
Oh! I have an idea! When you get cheesed at 75% you should nerd rage at 75% too. If it's on the map on the week, you can add 6%, and if you are higher rank than your opponent, you can multiply by 1,2 per superior rank and substract 2% if you are at D level. And if you were born on a month starting with S, you can also add 3% on raging.
PS: By the way, I understand that you don't want me on this thread, but since I am a member of this forum and as mods apparently still think that I am decent member enough not to get perma ban, you don't have any legitimity to tell me to shut up. :-)
"I am decent member enough not to get perma ban" Does this mean you were temp banned before? And off topic~ You're posts tend to go off topic thats why I don't want you here. -_-
On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote: Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no.
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it?
2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong.
3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it.
4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage....
Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand.
1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it?
2. hey you said yes yourself here.
3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way.
4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage
On December 29 2009 09:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
Seriously. That's so arbitrary that it's funny. You are talking out of nothing. Then a 2 factory opening is a 25% cheese because it leaves you at a big disadvantge if defended. Do you always reason with theses kind of awful decadent pseudo cartesianist sophisms?
So, ladies and gentlemen (drums)
2 port gate tvz is 38,6% a cheese, considering the risk taking, the scouting element and all the shit.
Wait... should I nerd rage or not? Let me look at my calculator.
Oh! I have an idea! When you get cheesed at 75% you should nerd rage at 75% too. If it's on the map on the week, you can add 6%, and if you are higher rank than your opponent, you can multiply by 1,2 per superior rank and substract 2% if you are at D level. And if you were born on a month starting with S, you can also add 3% on raging.
PS: By the way, I understand that you don't want me on this thread, but since I am a member of this forum and as mods apparently still think that I am decent member enough not to get perma ban, you don't have any legitimity to tell me to shut up. :-)
"I am decent member enough not to get perma ban" Does this mean you were temp banned before? And off topic~ You're posts tend to go off topic thats why I don't want you here. -_-
Nah. I'm not off topic. I've been discussing the validity of your idea and of some of your points. I know I am not being very nice to your thread, but I sincerly think it is harmful. And I haven't been banned a single minute as you could check on the very beloved enjoyable automated ban list.
On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote: Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no.
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it?
2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong.
3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it.
4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage....
Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand.
1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it?
2. hey you said yes yourself here.
3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way.
4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage
You are not 100% committed to this build, you can cancel the gates while they are warping or you can build only 1gate or you just build a pylon to make him over react and you just build in your main instead... you dont have to do 2gates all the time or even let them finish. When you send 4 rines and all your SVC's you go with it and hope god protects you... is not the same.
What i said is that micro is an important part of it not that it boils down to it and no 4gate goon is not cheese is just a counter to 2gate > robo which can go to 3gate goon....
Yes but that doesnt mean that that is the most important part of the build... look, if he doesnt get surprised and he doesnt pull probes because he knows what you are trying to do then you just throw down a second gate. It is not the surprise what makes this work... if he throws down a second gate, then you both are going to micro while you harass his probes delaying his mining cycle while you get an economic advantage... Even if scouted the main purpose of this build is not to win even though some times you can, so it is not surprise.
when i mentioned that I was referring to your statements of "i have more zealots so i can contain you and expand".
That in YOUR eyes is a disadvantage and i am not going to spend my time arguing that, thats why i still added "but this is still a NO" because from our point of view it is not a disadvantage. I did no see that it was a quote of mine cause here is late and i am tired and this is getting too long for nothing.
At the end you guys will still think it is a "cheese" while we state that is an econ build. So this is for nothing
On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote: Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no.
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it?
2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong.
3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it.
4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage....
Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand.
1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it?
2. hey you said yes yourself here.
3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way.
4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage
On December 29 2009 09:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
Seriously. That's so arbitrary that it's funny. You are talking out of nothing. Then a 2 factory opening is a 25% cheese because it leaves you at a big disadvantge if defended. Do you always reason with theses kind of awful decadent pseudo cartesianist sophisms?
So, ladies and gentlemen (drums)
2 port gate tvz is 38,6% a cheese, considering the risk taking, the scouting element and all the shit.
Wait... should I nerd rage or not? Let me look at my calculator.
Oh! I have an idea! When you get cheesed at 75% you should nerd rage at 75% too. If it's on the map on the week, you can add 6%, and if you are higher rank than your opponent, you can multiply by 1,2 per superior rank and substract 2% if you are at D level. And if you were born on a month starting with S, you can also add 3% on raging.
PS: By the way, I understand that you don't want me on this thread, but since I am a member of this forum and as mods apparently still think that I am decent member enough not to get perma ban, you don't have any legitimity to tell me to shut up. :-)
"I am decent member enough not to get perma ban" Does this mean you were temp banned before? And off topic~ You're posts tend to go off topic thats why I don't want you here. -_-
Nah. I'm not off topic. I've been discussing the validity of your idea and of some of your points. I know I am not being very nice to your thread, but I sincerly think it is harmful. And I haven't been banned a single minute as you could check on the very beloved enjoyable automated ban list.
Yes you are off topic. If you want to discuss the validity of calling a build a cheese, you can do it somewhere else, make your own thread if you're so passionate about it. and congrats on not getting banned once. I guess thats what i'm supposed to say.
On December 29 2009 09:18 RaptorX wrote: Now lets measure 2gate proxy:
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
You are saying that you ARE going to have more zealots than me, but how do you know that? what if i dont let my zealots die? what if i killed some probes and just walked around your base while making my normal BO at home? maybe i will get goons before you, what if i just killed you with it?... There are infinite possibilities this BO can fall to but i am just talking about this one in which you get 3 probe advantage and the zealot numers are 2 for me and 3-4 for you.
In THAT particular possibility I am saying that the game is at worse EVEN, and thats what Kwark mentioned earlier, and thats what you have to understand. If the game is even then the BO is not cheese and you will not have an advantage, because is even. Then we both have the same chances to win, it goes down to who microes better, or macroes better, or harass better or has better tech you name it.
You ARE going to have less zealots because you need to sacrifice some zealot to as much economic disruption as possible.
1) commit to before scouting? -> not really because you are already scouting. 2) high-risk strategy? -> if you dont know what you are doing, yes. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely no, it actually leaves you with a small advantage, if the attack went good then the advantage will be more (you might actually win)
Heres my way of looking at it. 1) commit to before scouting? -> Yes, you leaving with one of your first 4 probes to do this, you have not scouted anything yet. How you adapt is depending on how you scout, but that can be said for many cheese. 2) high-risk strategy? -> Yes because it really comes down to the micro. 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> Kwark has said many times that most players are so surprised by this build that they react to it the wrong way, so yes. 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no.
So thats 75%, passing for a cheese in my book.
1) no dude, even if you go with your first probe you are @ his main... you are scouting him, if you see that he throws down a second gate you will act accordingly, if you see he goes pylon you will act accordingly, 4 pool you cant change your mind... is 4pool to go. Why dont you see it?
2) no my friend it doesnt just come down to micro man, it comes down to game sense to know if you throw down a second gate or not, if you go and try to kill probes instead of attacking his zealot, or if you just let him take the gates so you can continue with your plan.... this is like saying that 4gate goon vs 3gate goon boils down to micro and thats why it is cheese... is just wrong.
3) Surprise is not its main strength... do you even read??? the main strength is in the opponent taking his probes to shut down your gate or not, it is also in if he lays down another gate or not... you simply dont get it.
4) It doesnt leave you in disadvantage muffin... it GIVES you advantage....
Man you seriously need to play Starcraft competitively to understand.
1. Yes you are committed to this build. You are using it from the get go. You start a game, you go to your opponent's base and build a pylon then a gateway. Thats doing it isn't it?
2. hey you said yes yourself here.
3. Yes I did read. Kwark mentioned couple times that players are so flabbergasted that they often react to it in the wrong way.
4. "leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> No, large disadvantage no, but little yes, but this is still a no." <- Took word for word from your post. Seems like you do get off with a disadvantage not a advantage
You are not 100% committed to this build, you can cancel the gates while they are warping or you can build only 1gate or you just build a pylon to make him over react and you just build in your main instead... you dont have to do 2gates all the time or even let them finish. When you send 4 rines and all your SVC's you go with it and hope god protects you... is not the same.
What i said is that micro is an important part of it not that it boils down to it and no 4gate goon is not cheese is just a counter to 2gate > robo which can go to 3gate goon....
Yes but that doesnt mean that that is the most important part of the build... look, if he doesnt get surprised and he doesnt pull probes because he knows what you are trying to do then you just throw down a second gate. It is not the surprise what makes this work... if he throws down a second gate, then you both are going to micro while you harass his probes delaying his mining cycle while you get an economic advantage... Even if scouted the main purpose of this build is not to win even though some times you can, so it is not surprise.
when i mentioned that I was referring to your statements of "i have more zealots so i can contain you and expand".
That in YOUR eyes is a disadvantage and i am not going to spend my time arguing that, thats why i still added "but this is still a NO" because from our point of view it is not a disadvantage. I did no see that it was a quote of mine cause here is late and i am tired and this is getting too long for nothing.
At the end you guys will still think it is a "cheese" while we state that is an econ build. So this is for nothing
Woah woah woah. Calm down. I just took some of your quotes to show where you contradicted yourself.
when i mentioned that I was referring to your statements of "i have more zealots so i can contain you and expand".
That in YOUR eyes is a disadvantage and i am not going to spend my time arguing that, thats why i still added "but this is still a NO" because from our point of view it is not a disadvantage. I did no see that it was a quote of mine cause here is late and i am tired and this is getting too long for nothing.
That is a pretty big disadvantage if you think about it. You are going to lose you economic edge. I was getting into this discussion because it seems like this build is prone to getting contained, but you seemed too tired for this so oh well.
I honestly see why you guys don't see this build as cheese, but midgame play that follows this concerns me.
On December 26 2009 09:01 EsX_Raptor wrote: Cheese -noun Term used by mediocre, incompetent Star Craft players to refer to an opposing strategy meant to defeat them in less than 10 minutes. -verb To use an all-in-by-nature type of strategy to take out an equally, or higher skilled opponent swiftly.
Whaaa? I got this: –noun 1. the curd of milk separated from the whey and prepared in many ways as a food.
On a more serious note, awesome thread.. love how you added videos.
EPT
