EPTOn February 03 2005 15:20 rpf289 wrote:
cant we all just be friends and hold hands and sing stupid songs like on barney?
cant we all just be friends and hold hands and sing stupid songs like on barney?
I'm down.
Am I stopping probe production at the right time? - Page 8
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
SCFraser
Canada1534 Posts
I'm down. | ||
|
Cygnus
United States847 Posts
holds out hand. | ||
|
[GG]Drew
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
[GG]Drew
United States18 Posts
 Im just messing... dont get mad at me and talk Sh*t.. lol I've read to much cussing already.. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On February 03 2005 12:54 FroST(TE) wrote: just wondering, is there anybody here aside from me and fayth that are a proponent of nonstop probes for a lot longer time? You should produce nonstop probes long enough to be able to seed your nat with 12 probes and stil be near saturation at your main IMO. I think it's absolutely retarded to just power probes all game though, which some people earlier in the thread seem to advocate. Unfortunately for the guy who asked the question... there is no concrete answer, as you may have guessed by now. It's situational. If you need to cut probes here and there to execute your 3 gate goon/reaver attack vs an early exp go for it. In general though, making probes in pvp is no different than in pvt or pvz in early to early mid game. | ||
|
Pomozite
Croatia647 Posts
On February 03 2005 18:06 Louder wrote: In general though, making probes in pvp is no different than in pvt or pvz in early to early mid game. I agree with this. In SC timing is everthing and when you attack you should have as many units as possible. Cutting probe production gives you more units at certain point. In pvt and pvz it that is not obvious as in pvp, because it is much easier to waste army, but in pvp when you lose battle it is because your opponent had more units. | ||
|
pheered.user
United States2603 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
You stated that you make 40 probes before expanding because it will help your macro once you decide to take your expansion. You claim that making ~15 more probes than what is recommended by Drone, and presumably that many more probes than the opponent you'd be playing, will not set you back significantly in unit count and thus allow you to defend that expansion. Quite a few people pointed out that with the additional resources from not making ~15 more probes and the extra pylons to support them, there WOULD be enough of a resource advantage by your opponent to take out any expansion attempt you'd make to justify your pointless pre-expansion higher probe count via additional Goons, Zlots, or Reaver tech. Try to get this part: barring a significant disparity in skill level between you and your opponent, you will NOT be able to hold any expansion attempt with the resource advantage your opponent has if you make 40 probes prior to expanding unless you do something nifty with tech (Reaver, DT and opp has no Obs). As such, you will NOT be able to utilize whatever imagined advantage you\'d hope for by making the addition ~15 probes. Not sure how much clearer I can make this. Now if you decide to not expand until after you see your opponent expand, then it becomes a waiting game that you will ultimately lose as your extra probes will put, and leave, you behind. If your opponent decides to expand instead of wait you out, then you may have a chance to catch up if he ignores the window of opportunity to wipe out your simultaneous expansion attempt (yes, I know you said 2-3 seconds after, but that is stupid and should not be considered "after" at all), but that is assuming a less than competent opponent which we have already discussed to be a factor should not be considered in a discussion of Strategies. I hope that you realize it's pointless to discuss the viability of strategies that rely upon your opponent's incompetence, as then any strategy becomes viable and people can start pulling out their nuke rush builds. Please refrain from making anymore posts on this topic until you discuss the points that people have made and I have tried to put together in this post. Your responses so far have been far from satisfactory when it comes to explaining away the weaknesses pointed out in your proposed PvP strategy by other members, and I think we're all getting tired of you and your posts. | ||
|
Fayth[pG]
Canada1093 Posts
| ||
|
FroST(TE)
United States909 Posts
| ||
|
[G]Max_Power
Slovakia304 Posts
On February 03 2005 19:12 XaI)CyRiC wrote: [G]Max: You stated that you make 40 probes before expanding because it will help your macro once you decide to take your expansion. You claim that making ~15 more probes than what is recommended by Drone, and presumably that many more probes than the opponent you'd be playing, will not set you back significantly in unit count and thus allow you to defend that expansion. Quite a few people pointed out that with the additional resources from not making ~15 more probes and the extra pylons to support them, there WOULD be enough of a resource advantage by your opponent to take out any expansion attempt you'd make to justify your pointless pre-expansion higher probe count via additional Goons, Zlots, or Reaver tech. Try to get this part: barring a significant disparity in skill level between you and your opponent, you will NOT be able to hold any expansion attempt with the resource advantage your opponent has if you make 40 probes prior to expanding unless you do something nifty with tech (Reaver, DT and opp has no Obs). As such, you will NOT be able to utilize whatever imagined advantage you\'d hope for by making the addition ~15 probes. Not sure how much clearer I can make this. Now if you decide to not expand until after you see your opponent expand, then it becomes a waiting game that you will ultimately lose as your extra probes will put, and leave, you behind. If your opponent decides to expand instead of wait you out, then you may have a chance to catch up if he ignores the window of opportunity to wipe out your simultaneous expansion attempt (yes, I know you said 2-3 seconds after, but that is stupid and should not be considered "after" at all), but that is assuming a less than competent opponent which we have already discussed to be a factor should not be considered in a discussion of Strategies. I hope that you realize it's pointless to discuss the viability of strategies that rely upon your opponent's incompetence, as then any strategy becomes viable and people can start pulling out their nuke rush builds. Please refrain from making anymore posts on this topic until you discuss the points that people have made and I have tried to put together in this post. Your responses so far have been far from satisfactory when it comes to explaining away the weaknesses pointed out in your proposed PvP strategy by other members, and I think we're all getting tired of you and your posts. ok cyric,everyone has its own truth. But you must admit that in some cases its better not to cut probes (as you can read before i NEVER said it is ALWAYS the best strat like some people assume i did) And yes,my responses may not be satisfactory given the fact the i am not a forum dragon with ~8000 posts but when there is something i want to discuss its pvp,probes and upgrades. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
2. It's true that there are times when it's not good to cut probes, however the situation you've outlined in your posts is not one of them. Everytime you explain how you personally play PvP with 40 probes prior to expansion you get countered and you fail to answer with any reasonable explanations. Everyone recognizes there are exceptions to the cutting of probe production, but the way you play is clearly not one of those situations and so you are wrong. 3. Your last sentence also makes NO sense. Post count means nothing when it comes to backing up one's arguments or making reasonable and logical posts. "...but when there is something i want to discuss its pvp,probes and upgrades"? We ARE discussing pvp and probes, so you should be fine as it's something you want to discuss. If you really want to discuss the topic then do it in a constructive manner, whether this is your first post or your 10000th. 4. Bottom line, stop posting until you can learn to make some sense in your posts. Not only do you dodge issues and counter arguments with stupidity, you also flame and post in a condescending manner when you are so very clearly WRONG. | ||
|
MaTRiX[SiN]
Sweden1282 Posts
Quite a few people pointed out that with the additional resources from not making ~15 more probes and the extra pylons to support them, there WOULD be enough of a resource advantage by your opponent to take out any expansion attempt you'd make to justify your pointless pre-expansion higher probe count via additional Goons, Zlots, or Reaver tech. this seems to be the main point of argument..one side says what's said above while the other side says its possible to defend that expansion and cause of having made more probes outproduce the oponnent...imho this depends on what map it is, cliffs,positions,travel distance,if one player got an advantage earlier,micro etc. and also (from what I've understood of the posts so far in this thread) ur basically doing an all or nothing attack if ur playing low probe and u dont have a HUGE advantage so if u make some tiny misstake u could lose that advantage and then u've lost the game..reavers r better in defence than in offence and u got positional advantage from defending+by the time the attacker reaches the defenders base he's goten at least 3 more goons.. I think both sides r being just as stubborn and dont want to admit to being wrong or addressing the other sides arguments in any way..just cause the ones saying to cute probe production got a higher post count or a fancier nickname does that mean that they r 100% right? .. on another note I saw that some ppl said that u should after having had low probes off 1 base u xpo and at the same time make more probes to get a better econ as u r expanding..that seems a bit off from what I thougt was the way to do it..when ur expanding u r more vulnerable since ur not using ur minerals to get units and cause of that this is the time when u (if not be4) cut ur probe production+add more gates to get a higher production and be able to defend..if ur xpoing and making more probes +u have to get more gateways+u need to get citadel/archives for zeal speed and storm wich u usually dont have that early..that seems alot less effective to me ...when ur going to be weak ur not making up for it but instead ur making urself even weaker at this point? especially if ur the first one to expand this seems reaaally off to me... | ||
|
KillerPenguin
United States516 Posts
In response to matrix, I am one of the people who start making probes right as I am expoing. Yes it makes me doubly weak by doing this but it is still better. Imagine that I didn't make probes right as I am expoing and instead made them earlier and stopped as I expoed. Then earlier I would be weak and the extra probes would not be contributing to resource gathering. So really it isn't that I'm putting a target on myself later on, its that I'm staying strong untill I have to drop down to the weaker state I would have already been in. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
Read more carefully and you will see that my arguments are based upon the assumption that all other factors are equal except for cutting or not cutting probes. The factors of travel distance, the location of the expansion, early advantages, micro skill, etc have all been discussed and been used to qualify the posts. The point is that [G]Max makes no qualifying statements or explanations as to these factors by pointing out that he gets early reavers to defend, has to outmicro his opponent, needs an early advantage, only works on maps with long travel distances or protected expansion locations, etc. His claim is that even if all other things are equal, his way of playing PvP is better than that suggested by Drone and others in the circumstances he outlined. He stands by his claim that making that many probes prior to expansion will allow him to eventually outmacro his opponent and win, when it is quite clear that this is not true as long as your opponent knows what they're doing and doesn't mess up. Claiming that both sides are being stubborn and ignoring the other's arguments is ignorant and, in my opinion, far from the truth. Drone and I have read [G]Max's posts quite carefully, took his opinions into account, and have made counter-arguments that directly address his points. He, on the other hand, has done anything but and it is his fallacious arguments that have drawn the most criticism. There is nothing wrong with making a mistake, but to make illogical arguments that make no sense while flaming and ridiculing others is another. While post count may be irrelevant, a "fancy nickname" as you put it is very relevant in this case. When a player like Drone who has proven his expertise in the game and has played it at its highest levels expresses an opinion on strategy, it should definitely be weighed more than that of a person who has proven nothing. It's silly to ignore the fact that Drone is one of the best players in Europe when it comes to weighing whose opinion on probe production is more likely to be correct, his opinions are weighed heavily and rightfully so. Regardless, post count and reputation have little to do with what's wrong with [G]Max's posts. If anyone made the posts he's made, be it Drone or myself, they would be treated with the same criticism. His arguments are flawed and he refuses to acknowledge that fact, while maintaining an air of superiority he has yet to earn or seems deserving of. | ||
|
[G]Max_Power
Slovakia304 Posts
i will respond later hello hi  | ||
ManaBlue
Canada10458 Posts
On February 04 2005 18:51 [G]Max_Power wrote: umm im too out of order now i will respond later hello hi Hello hi to you too! Funny how this is the most meaningful and intelligent post you've made in this entire thread... | ||
|
MaTRiX[SiN]
Sweden1282 Posts
On February 04 2005 12:29 XaI)CyRiC wrote: well the way I look at it if u got any of those factors in ur favour or u think that u're able to outmicro ur oponnent u'd come out with a huge advantage and also if he expands first(with lower probe count) or is being defensive(with or without lower probe count) u can safely expand urself and in those and other cases it seems to me like its a more stable/safe way of playing to make more probes while if ur playing low probe u have to be very aggressive early on and if it fails u lost..MaTRiX, Read more carefully and you will see that my arguments are based upon the assumption that all other factors are equal except for cutting or not cutting probes. The factors of travel distance, the location of the expansion, early advantages, micro skill, etc have all been discussed and been used to qualify the posts. The point is that [G]Max makes no qualifying statements or explanations as to these factors by pointing out that he gets early reavers to defend, has to outmicro his opponent, needs an early advantage, only works on maps with long travel distances or protected expansion locations, etc. His claim is that even if all other things are equal, his way of playing PvP is better than that suggested by Drone and others in the circumstances he outlined. He stands by his claim that making that many probes prior to expansion will allow him to eventually outmacro his opponent and win, when it is quite clear that this is not true as long as your opponent knows what they're doing and doesn't mess up. . edit: Im not arguing against maxp behaving like a moron | ||
|
[G]Max_Power
Slovakia304 Posts
On February 04 2005 09:52 XaI)CyRiC wrote: 1. "Everyone has its own truth" makes NO sense. 2. It's true that there are times when it's not good to cut probes, however the situation you've outlined in your posts is not one of them. Everytime you explain how you personally play PvP with 40 probes prior to expansion you get countered and you fail to answer with any reasonable explanations. Everyone recognizes there are exceptions to the cutting of probe production, but the way you play is clearly not one of those situations and so you are wrong. 3. Your last sentence also makes NO sense. Post count means nothing when it comes to backing up one's arguments or making reasonable and logical posts. "...but when there is something i want to discuss its pvp,probes and upgrades"? We ARE discussing pvp and probes, so you should be fine as it's something you want to discuss. If you really want to discuss the topic then do it in a constructive manner, whether this is your first post or your 10000th. 4. Bottom line, stop posting until you can learn to make some sense in your posts. Not only do you dodge issues and counter arguments with stupidity, you also flame and post in a condescending manner when you are so very clearly WRONG. If someone doesnt understand what was written doesnt mean it makes no sense... #2 first sentence is basically an aggreement with my opinion so ... matrix pointed out that situation very nicely.When I go expand you are forced to attack which makes it a do-or-die strat and considering the travel distance,defense position and other factors I have a good chance to hold my expo. That sums up my point of view. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
You do realize that it becomes a do-or-die strat for BOTH sides in such a situation not just for the one who cuts probe production? The game is over if you fail to get that expansion up, same as if your opponent fails to stop your expansion. You are both relying upon your opponent's incompetence to win because, as mentioned in many earlier posts, you WILL lose if your opponent doesn't mess up. This sums up my point of view: If you play PvP the way [G]Max suggests, and neither your nor your opponent messes up in any significant way, you will lose. All things equal you will lose. If you and your opponent both play flawless, you will lose. Again, the ONLY way you can win is if your opponent plays worse than you. Personally I'd pick the strategy that gives me the best chance of winning, and [G]Max's is, in my opinion, not that strategy. | ||
| ||
