This discussion started by an argument. In this case, I was defending the honor of Tasteless and SuperDaniel, as some members of Teamliquid community refer to them as "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" in their GomTV commentaries. I don't want a flame war here so I am not naming name.
Basically the argument goes like this "Tasteless over usage of the term "bulldog" is just as bad as SC2GG commentator's over usage of "bisu build" on every cannon fast expo pvz."
Here is what I said, which led to the discussion of what is a Build, and how to define an strategy. + Show Spoiler +
On April 22 2009 06:49 rei wrote: The objective of Bisu build is designed to expand and have the ability to do harrassement and easy scouting, As bisu first demonstrated it in his games vs savior.
SCGG commentators use "bisu build" on every protoss fast expo with cannon.
Objective of cannon fast expo does not always have to be harrassment (ex: instead set up a strong +1 speedlot rush, or fast goon reaver combo attack)
On the other hand, the objective of Bulldog is to break a fast expanding terran's defense.
It does not matter what building order, 2 or 3 gateway opening (originally i think bulldog is done with 3gates), does not matter if it is prox robo reaver or no reaver, the objective is the same, break that fucking terran defense, either with shuttle on top of the ramp and goons below, or elevator all goons inside terran main before picking up the reaver. Again the Objective is the same!
all Bisu builds have the same objective, all bulldog build have the same objective, if the objective of the build in question is different from the name associated with, then the commentator made an mistake. Tasteless did not make the mistake as he has focus on the objective of what a protoss can do with the fast shuttle by calling it bulldog.
The bulldog build (quoted by the TLuser as evidence for testeless and Daniel being "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy")
^Bulldog (or 4zeal shuttle, 3 gate goon) being used correctly. (the actual attack starts at 8:05)
It doesn't necessarily have to be breaking the nat. In that vod, Guemchi is breaking Up's wallin (to his main), which is what it's normally used for. After dropping the 4 zealots into his main or nat, you can carry in dragoons to further pressure the opponent.
The build is somewhat "all-in" like, so with bad micro you will probably lose all your units and lose the game. But with good micro, you'll just break the opponent (if he didn't scout the rush coming).
He goes on to explain that "This is the purest, most precise description of a bulldog, but at most the term can be generalized to refer to an early-mid-game attack which is designed to break a Terran base with a combination of dragoons and zealot bombs (no reaver)."
At this point of our discussion it is clear that there are many people defines starcraft strategies as what they see on replays and 1 vod. As more and more TLers agree with testeless and Daniel being "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" I feel the need to save them from misinformation.
as new players are feed by their mentors with "builds" i couldn't help but pounder what tasteless said about Baby before game1 of baby vs jangbi series.( basically tasteless made a point about baby might be a monster at macroing but can't adapt and vary strategically base on different situations due to his young age), Like the person I was discussing with, many people are pointing to a building order to define a build. I want to talk about the definition of a Strategy(or aka build). My argument is that a build is not absolute, by absolute i mean a build does not have to follow a strict number of units or building at a certain timing, based on the progress of every single game a build have different adaptation for more than one scenarios. let me point out that the "bulldog build" quoted by this TLuser is only 1 variation of the entire build that only fits one scenario( that particular replay or vod the build order derived from). Tasteless even mentioned in Game 1 of Major vs Reach that protoss does various versions of the shuttle play in early to mid game in attempts to break the terran defense, signifying that the Bulldog build is not absolute. And Like i mention inside the the spoiler tag above, it is the objective that defines an strategy, not the building order. The timing can be vary, the unit mix can be vary, but the objective is always the same.
And then compare to the Fantasy build when he played jeadong in osl final,
and then compare to the fantasy build when he played during proleague,
"Fantasy build" s not absolute. It has flexibility, innovation and variations which all depend on different maps, opponents, and scouting information. A build is not what you think it is (a fixed number of units and timing) , it is not an building order, an building order is only an small part of a build that allows the player to adapt to various scenarios.
Sure, a build has many variants. But a Bulldog is always a natural-crashing attack off of one base, with pure Dragoons and 4 Zealots in a Shuttle. That's the only definition.
I don't mind his "Bulldoggish" variant with a Reaver; although not the original definition it certain fits into the theme of a Bulldog. However any sort of Shuttle harassment is not a Bulldog - a Bulldog is a straight, crashing attack on the natural meant to break it.
On April 22 2009 09:30 Chill wrote: - a Bulldog is a straight, crashing attack on the natural meant to break it.
That's it, the objective of the Bulldog, it doesn't always have to have 4 zealots in it, 2 reavers or 1reaver +2lots will do too, tasteless only used bulldog in scenarios which protoss potentially could break the natural with shuttle play, whether the protoss decide to bulldog or just harrase depend on different scenarios, maybe he sees terran is well defended against the bulldog, in which toss decide not to commit the goons, or maybe he sees an opening in which he can do more by just reaver harrase. the protoss is adapting to different scenerios he sees.
On April 22 2009 09:30 Chill wrote: Sure, a build has many variants. But a Bulldog is always a natural-crashing attack off of one base, with pure Dragoons and 4 Zealots in a Shuttle. That's the only definition.
I don't mind his "Bulldoggish" variant with a Reaver; although not the original definition it certain fits into the theme of a Bulldog. However any sort of Shuttle harassment is not a Bulldog - a Bulldog is a straight, crashing attack on the natural meant to break it.
This is exactly what I was thinking while reading the OP.
Yeah, it is kinda annoying the flexible use of "Bisu build" (which is forge FE opening into sair/dt in the midgame as well as some further extension into the endgame) by commentators, which is why I explicitly try to avoid those two little words in my commentaries unless it is ACTUALLY a bisu build. Forge FE can mean +1 rush, sair/reav(/carrier), sair/reav/zeal, zeal/sair (Khan protosses lol), among other things.
The objective is what defines a strategy, not the building order, unit mix and timing.
you can clearly see the evidence in the "fantasy build", what is the objective of the "fantasy build" ? why valkyries? why is fantasy build different when fantasy plays Jeadong compare to vs. GGplay? What's different? maps? positioning? scouting information in that particular game? How did fantasy win, and Why did fantasy lost? how did jeadong prevent fantasy from completing the "fantasy build"'s objective?
Day[9] did a very informative post on the Fantasy build, check out his works.
On April 22 2009 09:30 Chill wrote: Sure, a build has many variants. But a Bulldog is always a natural-crashing attack off of one base, with pure Dragoons and 4 Zealots in a Shuttle. That's the only definition.
I don't mind his "Bulldoggish" variant with a Reaver; although not the original definition it certain fits into the theme of a Bulldog. However any sort of Shuttle harassment is not a Bulldog - a Bulldog is a straight, crashing attack on the natural meant to break it.
This is exactly what I was thinking while reading the OP.
Yeah, it is kinda annoying the flexible use of "Bisu build" (which is forge FE opening into sair/dt in the midgame as well as some further extension into the endgame) by commentators, which is why I explicitly try to avoid those two little words in my commentaries unless it is ACTUALLY a bisu build. Forge FE can mean +1 rush, sair/reav(/carrier), sair/reav/zeal, zeal/sair (Khan protosses lol), among other things.
rofl, in your last sentence you prove that you missed the point
Perhaps u are arguing for the difference between strategy and build orders? Build orders are designed based on the strategies they seek to carry out, like the bulldog attack, different build orders can exist to implement the same strategy.
Yeah, builds are just designed to go into the strategy. Which is the action itself.
Yeah Daniel lee and tasteless are definitely NOT REALLY LOW in strategy. They are very intelligent. They probably just don't want to spend time explaining it all the time.
On April 22 2009 10:09 w3jjjj wrote: Perhaps u are arguing for the difference between strategy and build orders? Build orders are designed based on the strategies they seek to carry out, like the bulldog attack, different build orders can exist to implement the same strategy.
correct, and I think tasteless with 99.99% certainty is talking about the Bulldog strategy, and not the "bulldog building order" when he uses the term "bulldog" during his commentary. Therefore calling tasteless "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" is a mistake, and new members of TL and the brood war community are being misinform.
Alright. I'll tell you about the evolution of the so-called bulldog build as I understand it, and so far as I know no one else has an understanding of its history anymore (or perhaps ever did).
If you want to see what I take to be the original bulldog rep see BullDoG[tC] vs. TNH)Marine that is available on the rep section of this site.
old post of mine: "Like ive typed before, i dont think bulldog = 3gate/4zeal shuttle. Dunno why people think it does. Judging by that rep, Bulldog is robo before first goon->1gate goon->3gate goon->double expo->mass shuttle. And the bulldog build is not good. Rek said it, and i agree with him." And it looks like the original bulldog never had as an objective a natural break with shuttle either.
Now, the person who did do 3gate goon/4zealot shuttle attack off of one base in order to break nat was rs.Pride. And I don't remember clearly, but pretty sure he did not refer to what he was doing as bulldog.
Ultimately, why did the title 'bulldog' build stick to pride's sort of build and not the actual player bulldogs own? I would say it is because bulldogs actual build was kind of bad and players realized that so it was not done. But Pride's build still has some potential as an alternative strategy. "Bulldog" is simply kind of catchy and I suppose people had some notion that it had to do with zealot shuttle, so it caught on to describe prides style of build.
Now it looks like the term 'bulldog' has become so amorphous that people just want to use it as 'crashing attack on the natural meant to break it'.
I don't care how you define "bulldog". Different people use terms in different ways. That fact is what is important to understand, as well as to recognize the history of the build.
The amount of mindless garbage talk / "comic material" (with lack of anything else to label it) on gomtv was stupid. Soooo much talk about the audience members, panda bear guy, random crap that wasn't about the game or even the meta game.
Artosis and Chill are good at explaining the details of whats happening in the game.
Alright. I'll tell you about the evolution of the so-called bulldog build as I understand it, and so far as I know no one else has an understanding of its history anymore (or perhaps ever did).
If you want to see the original bulldog rep see BullDoG[tC] vs. TNH)Marine that is available on the rep section of this site.
old post of mine: "Like ive typed before, i dont think bulldog = 3gate/4zeal shuttle. Dunno why people think it does. Judging by that rep, Bulldog is robo before first goon->1gate goon->3gate goon->double expo->mass shuttle. And the bulldog build is not good. Rek said it, and i agree with him." It looks like the original bulldog never had as an objective a natural break with shuttle.
Now, the person who did do 3gate goon/4zealot shuttle attack off of one base in order to break nat was rs.Pride. And I don't remember clearly, but pretty sure he did not refer to what he was doing as bulldog.
Ultimately, why did the title 'bulldog' build stick to pride's sort of build and not the actual player bulldogs own? I would say it is because bulldogs actual build was bad and people realized that, but prides build still has some potential as an alternative strategy. "Bulldog" is simply kind of catchy and people had some notion that it had to do with zealot shuttles so it caught on to describe prides style of build.
Now it looks like the term 'bulldog' has become so amorphous that people just want to use as 'crashing attack on the natural meant to break it'.
I don't care how you define it. Different people use terms in different ways. That fact is what is important to understand, as well as to recognize the history of the build and how the title 'bulldog' has morphed over time.
Everybody who understands starcraft knows that gomtv isn't high level commentary. It is for fun and basic education of poor players. Neither tasteless or DLee ever once have explained exact timings and their interelation it isn't there goal.
Day/artosis are the only high level commentators for starcraft in the english world.
Is being called 'low level' strategically an insult from which dlee and tasteless should be saved from? I personally don't watch gomtv and pray for pearls of starcraft knowledge to pour out of there mouths that might just save me from a loss on iccup.
It is a fact that they are 'low level' strategically. Why do you think that is bad? Tasteless is an entertainer not a teacher.
I can't help but think this shows that the relationship between strategy and build order is more fluid than either you or [your friend] realize. Any line you draw is going to be pretty artificial and really only defined on the context that it comes up in.
At this point "where bulldog actually comes from" is a moot point, since the generally accepted definition has a definition involving an attack and a shuttle from one base, but even that definition seems to be getting wider and wider with time.
On April 22 2009 12:16 AttackZerg wrote: Everybody who understands starcraft knows that gomtv isn't high level commentary. It is for fun and basic education of poor players. Neither tasteless or DLee ever once have explained exact timings and their interelation it isn't there goal.
Day/artosis are the only high level commentators for starcraft in the english world.
Is being called 'low level' strategically an insult from which dlee and tasteless should be saved from? I personally don't watch gomtv and pray for pearls of starcraft knowledge to pour out of there mouths that might just save me from a loss on iccup.
It is a fact that they are 'low level' strategically. Why do you think that is bad? Tasteless is an entertainer not a teacher.
My evidence for tasteless and DanielLee talking with high level in terms of strategy happens in many games, i am going to just randomly pick the game i'm watching right now, Modesty vs Anytime game 3.
What tasteless and superdaniel is seeing: Anytime going 1 gate in main fast expo behind base without cannon, and harrase the zerg with the first zealot.
Superdaniel said: 1 gateway plays can be over run by many zerglings especially when the zerg over commits with the defense of early zealot harrase by making too many zerglings.
Nick said: one thing we are seeing is that Anytime is hiding a probe inside zerg base as zerg busy with the zealot, by doing so the protoss can later scout with that probe to make sure nothing tricky is being done by zerg that will fool the protoss.
example 2 What tasteless and daniel see: 2 zerglings leak inside anytime's base, so zealots wasn't Hold position on ramp.
Tasteless said: this could be very bad for protoss as the zerg can rally more and more lings into protoss base with speed upgrade and the protoss has only 1 gate teched + expoed will not be able to survive the zergling onslaughts.
Here both tasteless and superdaniel demonstrated ability to talk about what is happening and relate them to what could happen next, which strategy would be strong in these particular situations. On the example of hidden probes during zealot harrase, tasteless also explained and answered what to do to prevent an zergling allin described by supperdaniel. That probe will see all lings and no drone, therefore anytime will be able to do something about it.
I'm pretty sure i'm doing something useless here defending something does not need to be defend, but in the eyes of the newer members of starcraft community they might have believe Tasteless and Daniellee is "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" Which will hinder their understanding of the game, therefore the reason for me posting these is so that noobs know tasteless and Daniel are deep strategically.
I have answered your questions about your whys, and now let me ask you why do you claim "Neither tasteless or DLee ever once have explained exact timings and their interelation it isn't there goal." In the same time you also claim "I personally don't watch gomtv and pray for pearls of starcraft knowledge to pour out of there mouths that might just save me from a loss on iccup."
1. you provides no evidence on your claim about "Neither tasteless or DLee ever once have explained exact timings and their interelation it isn't there goal."
2.I provided evidence explained how they explained timing and scouting
3. you provided evidence on you don't watch gomtv "I personally don't watch gomtv and pray for pearls of starcraft knowledge to pour out of there mouths that might just save me from a loss on iccup."
4. you are wrongly insulting both tasteless and DLee with no evidence to back it up. (1,2,3)
Build order =/= strategy. Imo, strategy can be viewed as what your plan in a particular game is in order to win, build order is the most effective way to execute that strategy. A build order may vary due to variables x and y that occur in the game, however if you name a build order z, then to refer to this z the timings must be similar, eg. 30 seconds difference (due to x y variables) between basic timings of that build order that achieve the same thing. Also, if you name a build order Z, then what this build order achieves must be constant, you cant name a build order something, having in mind one thing, yet doing a completely different thing that is kind of similar but not quite, and refer back to the same build order.
To put this into an example, taking the one of bulldog, lets say that your general strategy is, I want to break the Terran in some way, preferably at his natural at a given timing, with a certain number of goons, using a shuttle and zealots to draw tank fire away from them, and the build order you use for this is the ''bulldog one'', and assuming that to you, breaking a terran with goons+zealots+shuttle = bulldog, then thats what it is. A ''reaver bulldog'' is not a ''bulldog''as it is a completely different BO, because needing a reaver, you need different buildings than just zealot+goon+shuttle, but also you dont have the same strategy you started off with, which would be to kill the Terran with zealot+goon+shuttle off 1 base, at the Terrans natural. Yeah I think that made sense
I was watching a game off the gomtv site... I think Mind vs Last TvT game 1 and Mind rushed with a few vults (i think 4) and 2 marines and Mind was able to get in with 2-3 vulture and harass, but during this time tasteless/dan were talking about some random shit and I don't mind because I understand the game fully and only have the volume up to hear the sound of the game, not necessarily the casters, but I think anyone who's new to SC or maybe doesn't understand it as well would appreciate them to talk more of the strategic aspects of the game as opposed to some random factoid about a player who's not even in the game.
There's nothing wrong w/ factoids, they are pretty interesting most of the time, but they are best saved for moments where nothing is happening or during the opening countdown and first 60 seconds.
I think each duo needs a person who is somewhat comical and knows the game relatively well (tasteless) and someone who knows the game very well and is clear and concise and Dan doesn't do that very well IMO. I think Diggity would make a good counterpart with tasteless.
talking about stuffs off topic is not the same as "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy". Only evidences that justify "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" is quotes of tasteless and daniel lee constantly talking about strategies that is totally wrong in the context of the game they are commenting on. So far I have not yet spotted any that quilifies as "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy"
Language is a funny thing. In starcraft, new terms will constantly show up. And it's not like the terms have a single inventor and seldom do the users of the term all agree upon its meaning even from the start. People will have a differing understanding of the game itself and define it according to how they perceive the game. I'll even argue that calling a forge into FE with canons a "bisu build" is not completely incorrect if that is what the community decides to call it. If enough people use a term incorrectly in a small community, the incorrect meaning will become the one commonly used, understood and therefore correct.
We've had conflicting definitions in starcraft for a long time. I agree with the OP that it makes sense to define a "build" by its purpose. But you can't ignore the traits of the build that make it recognizable as what it is. You can't call a terran opening an FD build if the terran pushes out with 8 marines, 2 medics and a firebat even if the idea behind it is to pressure, expo and give the protoss doubts about whether or not it is an expo build or not. If you call that an FD biuld, people will laugh at you. But it doesn't necesarily mean you understand the game any less by using a wrong name for it though.
Btw, this has nothing to do with tasteless nor daniel. And people should be patient with them even when they dumb down the language and strategy. They are not trying to teach us to be progamers, they are trying to convey to people what is going on and without a lot of time to actually ponder about how to precisely pick out the right words and terms. At the time when a player is busting someone's natural, you don't want to go into detail about the finer points of bulldog. They need to report the damage, the implications of the action, the psychological mindsets of the players etc...
On April 22 2009 06:49 rei wrote: @JWD can you describe the definition of a Bulldog rush and bisu build please?
I don't know what the hell this new definition for "bulldog" is, but it's sure not the original one. The real bulldog build was named after a Korean player by the same name back in 2003 or so. It was a pvt build centered around speeding up tech in lieu of dragoons. The robotics would always be built before the first dragoon, and the discretion of the protoss would determine how it branched from there. Sometimes one goon would be made after the robo, other times no goons at all would be made until the buildings were down. Either way, the protoss always ended up with 3 gateways, dragoon range, and observer tech. Back in this era, there was no "FD" rush, and terrans would do a slower rush if they went 2 fact. The third gate made up for the lack of early goons, and it was easy to hold the ramp against the terran rush (remember, everyone played on LT during these days, so you always had the ramp advantage).
At this point, the protoss already had a robo and 3 gates, so he could easily make a shuttle and 3 zeals and counter (I think this is where the current definition stems from). The other option was simply to double expand to the natural/min-only and just overrun the terran economically.
Nowadays, any sort of shuttle + goon attack is blanketed under the term "bulldog," but the original build was more than just an attack.
As for the question at hand, it's a pretty complex answer. I consider "build" to be a more specific term than "strategy," so I don't think they are interchangeable in spite of your thread title. For example, the three most common terran strategies versus protoss are 2 fact, 1 fact expo, and 1 fact port. Each one of those general strategies has multiple, specific derivations, known as builds. One build that falls under the 1 fact expo strategy is the FD, which has specific times for buildings and units to be made. In no way, shape, or form, can a build extend beyond the early game. There are too many variables for it to continue in a static fashion.
For this reason, I think the "bisu build" would be more correctly labeled as the "bisu strategy." Bisu himself had more than one build, but each one had the same central element of early harass with corsairs. No one in today's era does anything remotely similar to the "bulldog build," because to be honest, it sucks balls. It is no longer viable to get goons/range so late, because any decent Korean terran will bulldoze you with an FD rush. Now, protoss players clearly still execute goon/shuttle attacks to break terran defenses, but the only thing they have in common with the old Korean player named bulldog is the strategy, not the build. They use different means to get to the same end.
I don't think our opinions are too different, but the problem is that you are erroneously lumping "strategy" and "build" into one term, at least in my view.
city42 do you have any reps where bulldog[tc] went goon+zealotshuttle attack off 1base? I don't, but if so that would be a clear link to suggest that is why that sort of build is named after him. Or the name could be a step removed, where someone other than him clearly modified his robo-first build for that style, and the name still stuck. Or it could be even further removed from the player, which would be the suggestion I made in my previous post that it was just an association made because of the catchy name and the original bulldog had something to do with zealotshuttle (as shown by the one replay I referenced).
Nice pointing out the strategy/build distinction, it think this distinction could be helpful. I see where you are coming from but, I still think you are a bit off. Is "FD Terran" a build or a strategy? Is "1fact expo" a build or a strategy? I would say that "FD terran" and "1fact expo" are actually both strategies where FD is merely a more specified strategy inside of 1fact expo. And in FD are the more specific strategy of softFD (1tank) or hardFD (2tanks). I would say a build is specific. A build is, for example, 9depot, 11rax, 15rine, 16fact, etc.
A final amusement is why it is called the "bisu build" rather than the "bisu strategy"? Is the bisu build specific enough to deserve to be called a build? Or is it because many people do conflate a possible strategy/build distinction? Or is it just because "bisu build" rhymes nicely? :p I think we would agree that it is basically because people conflate the strategy/build distinction (the op included). Edit- although he does use a build/build order distinction which is the same as our distinction, if perhaps a bit more confusing.
What we have learned from the thread is the distinctions between the diffrent uses of "bulldog". 1)As a specific build. This is what realpenguin means by 'pure' and 'percise'. I think what the op is trying to argue against is the idea of there being an ESSENCE that makes up "bulldog" so that it must only count as 1 specific build. fine by me. 2)As a strategy. Or generalized build, which Realpenguin does mention. 3) As a tactic. We now see how "bulldog" has come to mean not even a strategy or build for some, but a tactic of 'crashing attack on the natural meant to break it'. Language is very slippery and requires attention to detail...
wow rei... you took my post completely wrong. Maybe they are high level if you have no strategic understanding of starcraft at all.
I didn't say I don't watch gomtv, I said I don't watch it for educational purposes.
Really pointing out that having 1gateway against many zerglings is dangerous is high level ... HOLY CHRIST YOU ARE CORRECT, that is deep.
Yes the probe wasn't taking a cat nap, it was inside a players base for scouting, DEEP!!!!
Look mr.sensitive maybe you need to realize there is a difference between being 'low level strategic commentary' and being fucking retards like 90% of commentators. They are professionals who do a good job. They do a good job at keeping sometimes hideously boring games entertaining with back stories, good conversations and fluid game and scene knowledge.
NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU DIG NOTHING THEY SAY CAN BE SAID TO BE HIGH LEVEL. SORRY ITS JUST NOT WHAT THEY DO.
I am sorry that you do not understand starcraft so any game based observation is 'DEEP' to you but everything you quoted is very simple and DOES NOT explain in game timings and relations in an exact manner. If tasteless or dlee had taken it a few steps farther and delved into the 'window' of danger, how long it lasts for and what are the 'rewards' of tosses build and HOW LONG before they come into play it would be a different story.
I'm sorry but your stupid crusade to save tasteless and dlee from the opinions of starcraft fans isn't worth delving into vods to extract quotes to back up my point. The fact is my point is the general censusus and you are the only one thinking 'wow this is deep, I r laerning'.
So to summarize it again for you. They do great play by play, with some very simple strategic theorycrafting, they give back stories and personal ancedotes on the maps, there own games/experiences ect. They do not delve into the implications of even the meta-game very often let alone the naunces of timing. Sorry but its clear that your doing this because YOU feel something is deep. Artosis is deep.
Watch the game artosis casts on rh3 TvP, I'm sure somebody can remember who the toss and terran are. Artosis spent 10 minutes straight explaining how to play a 3 base pure macro toss as terran, and how to view it along with everything from factory count, upgrades, scv saturation, attack timings ect THAT IS HIGH LEVEL. I actually was able to sit back and learn many new concepts about TvP I had never heard of before and that from artosis speech it seems alot of terrans hadn't heard before.
Sorry, I don't have any reps of the guy anymore. It's been a few years and I've gone through a few computers/hard drives since then. I had a Korean-American buddy who filled me in on all the "new" strategies (or builds?!) back then. There was the bulldog, ddang hydra, baroque toss, hydra wave, sk terran, etc. The Korean scene has an astounding amount of stuff like that. If memory serves, bulldog was proficient with terran as well as protoss. Outside of replays, the only way I can think of to get some sort of official source on the build would be PGR21. I'm told that they have a very mature board for strategy discussion, and I'm fairly sure most of my second-hand information originated from there, as my friend was a regular reader.
I apologize for my ambiguity, but I was trying to refer to the original FD terran when I filed it under the "build" category. The name "fake double" refers to making the protoss believe it is a 2 fact rush, while you expand and mine yourself up. This build has very specific timings for taking scvs on/off gas and making the 6 rines. There are a lot of modern variations to it now, and overall "FD" merely refers to a strategy. The original FD terran, though, was just a build that the SK Telecom guys developed. Having re-read what I wrote, I definitely wasn't clear enough with that.
I won't even get started on the whole "tactic" issue, or I'll be up all night. I love the thought, though.
Listen to artosis explaining rets early game decisions. He spends the entire early game explaining the stage each player is setting and its mid and lategame implications and then he moves to a play-by-play of that execution.
This is nothing like the product dlee and tasteless produce.
Dude seriously if you like deep commentary watch all of artosis casts. Not everyone is as deep as the one I linked to (btw let it load for 10-15 minutes and make sure you right click and hit settings and move the bar to ulimited) but he really truely gives insightfull little nuggets in every game.
On April 22 2009 10:29 MiniRoman wrote: The amount of mindless garbage talk / "comic material" (with lack of anything else to label it) on gomtv was stupid. Soooo much talk about the audience members, panda bear guy, random crap that wasn't about the game or even the meta game.
Artosis and Chill are good at explaining the details of whats happening in the game.
They're not just catering to active melee SC players...they also have to make their commentary entertaining for those out there who don't understand the subtleties and intricacies of any given game. The whole point of providing English commentary on GOM's part is to expand the fan base throughout the world...that means outside of where a fanbase already exists. We all watch SC games regardless of whether or not there's English commentary. Tasteless+Daniel Lee exist to reach out to those who wouldn't and/or don't...so...they dumb down their commentary, and Tasteless isn't the best at articulating what's on his mind.
Evidence is what you must argue with, if you don't provide evidence to support your claim about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy", it does not matter how far you insult me, or how far you beg on your popular consensus. Nobody that is on the side of logic and reason is going to believe your claim about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy"
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: Maybe they are high level if you have no strategic understanding of starcraft at all.
The discussion has nothing to do with me, putting me into your argument and attacking me is a Fallacy. Ad_hominem
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: Really pointing out that having 1gateway against many zerglings is dangerous is high level ... HOLY CHRIST YOU ARE CORRECT, that is deep.
Sarcasm does not make you look more credible in an argument. If you want to claim that you are right about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" you need to first define what "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" is, And then provide a POSITIVE PROOF of what Tasteless and Daniel Lee said that matches your definitions of "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy"
You pointed out Artosis is what you considered to be "deep". and you providing example of what a "deep" level in terms of strategy looked like. But it does not POSITIVELY support your claim that Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy". You also did not provide any evidence on Tasteless and Daniel Lee did not talk about anything remotely close to what Artosis talked about. Even if i give you the benefit of the doubt in saying Tasteless and Daniel Lee did not match your definition of "deep" in strategy, quoting Artosis as evidence only NEGATIVELY PROOF what Tasteless and Daniel Lee did not do if you don't understand what negative proof and positive proof is, let me give you an example. "There is no proof that god does not exist, therefore god exists" is a negative Proof. "Kobe Bryant's confession in court about himself committing Adultery, therefore he committed Adultery" is a positive Proof.
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU DIG NOTHING THEY SAY CAN BE SAID TO BE HIGH LEVEL. SORRY ITS JUST NOT WHAT THEY DO.
Typing in all Bold and all cap does not make your words any credible than everybody's. And I am not going to comment on what it sounds like, because I would be committing Ad_hominem if I do.
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: I am sorry that you do not understand starcraft so any game based observation is 'DEEP' to you
Again Ad_hominem you can't argue with fallacies and expect people with a good common sense and capable of thinking critically and logically agree with you.
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm sorry but your stupid crusade to save tasteless and dlee from the opinions of starcraft fans isn't worth delving into vods to extract quotes to back up my point. The fact is my point is the general censusus and you are the only one thinking 'wow this is deep, I r laerning'.
You are sorry? really? you are apologizing? There is two parts to an Apology, 1st say you are sorry, 2nd you tell the people who you are apologizing to what you can do to make up for your mistake. you did the 1st part, you have failed to do the 2nd.
you are so far above everybody that you just can't de-leveling yourselves to pick out vod quotes to back up your point? Let me get it straight you are too good to give evidences to support your claim about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy".
"and you are the only one thinking 'wow this is deep, I r laerning'" here we have two different fallacies in half a sentence without any evidences to back up your claim. First, of course we have Ad_hominem by attacking me it does not make you more credible on your claim about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" Second, we have the fallacy of Non sequitur Argument: rei thinks "wow this is deep, I r Laerning" because rei has low understanding of brood war. Problem: One has no reason to believe that simply because rei has low understanding of brood war will cause the claim "Tasteless and Daniel Lee have REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" become True.
Let me sum it up for you AttackZerg, Under the TL.net Ten Commandments (#3 says Thou Shall Think before Posting.) Your posts are filled with Fallacies which I positively Proof therefore you did not think logically before posting ( i'm not saying you are incapable of logic because that would be Ad_hominem )and (#6 says Thou Shall Respect Forum Veterans) by claiming Tasteless who is a forum veteran, a well respected member of the community who gave so much to our community to have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" without constructing an argument with reason and logic, without providing evidences to support the claim, you have violated two of the ten commandments of TL.net.
PS. This thread is not about you dissing Tasteless or Daniel Lee, if you have nothing constructive to add to my topic opener "What is a strategy (aka build)" and only have insults to add on both me and tasteless + Daniel Lee get out of my thread please, save it for your blog
@city42 Thanks you for your information and analysis. Just to clear up on the "you are erroneously lumping "strategy" and "build" into one term"
My reason for lumping "strategy" and "build" into one definition is that I am distinguishing the term "build" and "building order". A "building order" is the order you make your buildings like the term refers to, in itself the term "building order" does not infer an objective. Whereas a "build" signifies building up an metagame to a specific goal. For example Stylish named his FPVOD "TvZ A-Yu-Min build on Othello" when he present his strategy. In his video he said "This time it is going to be an FPVODs where I use the A-Yu-Min strategy" He then goes on to talk about how he's not going to go over the building order, because he has already posted it on TL, he will only go over the details of his strategy (aka build).
as you can see, I made a distinction between strategy (aka build) and building order.
On April 22 2009 09:00 rei wrote: A build is not what you think it is (a fixed number of units and timing) , it is not an building order, an building order is only an small part of a build that allows the player to adapt to various scenarios.
Your points are not incompatible. Tasteless and Daniel can be great, high-level commentators, *AND* Day[9] and Artosis can provide an additional level of depth that is extremely valuable.
But I'm not even sure you can compare the two sets of commentators. I haven't heard much commentary from Artosis (I get a totally different video when I click AttackZerg's link) but I don't know if I've heard a single "real-time" cast from Day[9]. When I've heard him comment on a game, he's not seeing it for the first time, and has a very good idea already what the important points are, and what he's going to talk about.
Obviously that will give him an advantage in terms of details he can add, but that doesn't make him a better commentator per se, it makes *what he does* different. Tasteless and Daniel are also often facing exhausting back-to-back matches and constantly dealing with stupid technical problems.
If you guys would stop phrasing your opinions in the most incendiary way possible, you might enjoy yourselves more...
I explained how your 'proof' of high level commentary isn't high level at all and what high level commentary would entail.
Then I provided a link to a great example of high level commentary.
You having a low level starcract understanding. I do not. What you call 'high level' I call basic. When I link to 'high level' commentary so that you can understand the worlds of difference between the gomtv product and scforall product you post that it isn't proof that they are low level just that artosis is high level. I explained why your proof isn't high level and you wrote a bunch of meaningless none sense and babbled on and on without.
I gave you an example of high level commentary, you quoted commentary that isn't at all high level. The ball is in your court to provide proof. You are the one trying to sway public opinion into a wrong direction.
Only someone very uptight with to much time on their hands could actually think the way you do.
The fact is you think its an insult to call someone strategically low level, I do not.
You are missing the point that they purposefully not high level because their market base. They have far to many viewers to maintain consistent high level commentary. Just the basics.
The only person I have insulted in this topic is you. For your lack of bw understanding and your pathetic crusade to save tasteless and dleess from public shame. I have said nothing about the gomtv commentarys that isn't fact.
Telling me to leave a topic that you have posted nothing but drivel in is not appropriate. Here is the fun part. Now matter what you actually type you will still be wrong.
Check out scforall.com and learn about high level commentary and starcraft.
Maybe you should write essays for the classroom. When it comes to knowing the difference between what is 'high level' and what isn't you can't hold a candle to me. I understand this game inside and out.
(P.S get your head out of your ass man, arguing symantics is really fucking stupid. I have posted nothing negative in this entire thread, I posted the reality as I see it as a community member with strategic understanding. I thought you were a decent guy before now I didn't realize how weird you are. Seriously man there is a reason your thread isn't getting attention and it isn't because your right)
someone provide a working link to artosis commentaries plz, can't find any edit: oh, the ones with "english" in blue to the right of their names - although it only says which ones are english for the top 15 most popular..
an argument without logic is what I do not like to engage, an argument with fallacies is what I like to avoid. The time resource worth spending on attackzerg is 0.
Evidence is what you must argue with, if you don't provide evidence to support your claim about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy", it does not matter how far you insult me, or how far you beg on your popular consensus. Nobody that is on the side of logic and reason is going to believe your claim about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy"
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: Really pointing out that having 1gateway against many zerglings is dangerous is high level ... HOLY CHRIST YOU ARE CORRECT, that is deep.
Sarcasm does not make you look more credible in an argument. If you want to claim that you are right about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" you need to first define what "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" is, And then provide a POSITIVE PROOF of what Tasteless and Daniel Lee said that matches your definitions of "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy"
You pointed out Artosis is what you considered to be "deep". and you providing example of what a "deep" level in terms of strategy looked like. But it does not POSITIVELY support your claim that Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy". You also did not provide any evidence on Tasteless and Daniel Lee did not talk about anything remotely close to what Artosis talked about. Even if i give you the benefit of the doubt in saying Tasteless and Daniel Lee did not match your definition of "deep" in strategy, quoting Artosis as evidence only NEGATIVELY PROOF what Tasteless and Daniel Lee did not do if you don't understand what negative proof and positive proof is, let me give you an example. "There is no proof that god does not exist, therefore god exists" is a negative Proof. "Kobe Bryant's confession in court about himself committing Adultery, therefore he committed Adultery" is a positive Proof.
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU DIG NOTHING THEY SAY CAN BE SAID TO BE HIGH LEVEL. SORRY ITS JUST NOT WHAT THEY DO.
Typing in all Bold and all cap does not make your words any credible than everybody's. And I am not going to comment on what it sounds like, because I would be committing Ad_hominem if I do.
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: I am sorry that you do not understand starcraft so any game based observation is 'DEEP' to you
Again Ad_hominem you can't argue with fallacies and expect people with a good common sense and capable of thinking critically and logically agree with you.
On April 22 2009 17:32 AttackZerg wrote: I'm sorry but your stupid crusade to save tasteless and dlee from the opinions of starcraft fans isn't worth delving into vods to extract quotes to back up my point. The fact is my point is the general censusus and you are the only one thinking 'wow this is deep, I r laerning'.
You are sorry? really? you are apologizing? There is two parts to an Apology, 1st say you are sorry, 2nd you tell the people who you are apologizing to what you can do to make up for your mistake. you did the 1st part, you have failed to do the 2nd.
you are so far above everybody that you just can't de-leveling yourselves to pick out vod quotes to back up your point? Let me get it straight you are too good to give evidences to support your claim about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy".
"and you are the only one thinking 'wow this is deep, I r laerning'" here we have two different fallacies in half a sentence without any evidences to back up your claim. First, of course we have Ad_hominem by attacking me it does not make you more credible on your claim about Tasteless and Daniel Lee have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" Second, we have the fallacy of Non sequitur Argument: rei thinks "wow this is deep, I r Laerning" because rei has low understanding of brood war. Problem: One has no reason to believe that simply because rei has low understanding of brood war will cause the claim "Tasteless and Daniel Lee have REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" become True.
Let me sum it up for you AttackZerg, Under the TL.net Ten Commandments (#3 says Thou Shall Think before Posting.) Your posts are filled with Fallacies which I positively Proof therefore you did not think logically before posting ( i'm not saying you are incapable of logic because that would be Ad_hominem )and (#6 says Thou Shall Respect Forum Veterans) by claiming Tasteless who is a forum veteran, a well respected member of the community who gave so much to our community to have "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" without constructing an argument with reason and logic, without providing evidences to support the claim, you have violated two of the ten commandments of TL.net.
PS. This thread is not about you dissing Tasteless or Daniel Lee, if you have nothing constructive to add to my topic opener "What is a strategy (aka build)" and only have insults to add on both me and tasteless + Daniel Lee get out of my thread please, save it for your blog
Scforall.com go click the button sc tv and on the bottom right hand side you can scroll threw the different types of commentaries, they will have an english bottom to there right.
Also artosis posted the Idra vs Fenix match here, him and tasteless together provide the highest level TvP commentary I have ever heard and even talk alot about fenix vs idra.
This is also an example of tasteless providing very high level commentary (which is different from his gomtv style commentaries) but rei is missing the point about why there commentaries are so simple.... money is nice =).
rei, you are way too hung up on a few random people saying "really low level strategy". just because a few people said it doesn't mean that everyone thinks that and doesn't warrant a thread refuting it. are you going to make a thread every time a random person makes a random claim?
On April 23 2009 03:02 Hot_Bid wrote: rei, you are way too hung up on a few random people saying "really low level strategy". just because a few people said it doesn't mean that everyone thinks that and doesn't warrant a thread refuting it. are you going to make a thread every time a random person makes a random claim?
Hot_Bid this thread is not about tasteless and daniel Lee Attackzerg is derailing it into that, I opened the thread on the question "what is strategy (aka build).
For example Chill and city42 is talking on topic, in compare to what Attackzerg is posting you can see the difference on topic
On April 22 2009 09:00 rei wrote: This discussion started by an argument. In this case, I was defending the honor of Tasteless and SuperDaniel, as some members of Teamliquid community refer to them as "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" in their GomTV commentaries. I don't want a flame war here so I am not naming name.
Don't lie about the intent of your thread. And don't whine when people actually respond to it.
On April 23 2009 03:02 Hot_Bid wrote: rei, you are way too hung up on a few random people saying "really low level strategy". just because a few people said it doesn't mean that everyone thinks that and doesn't warrant a thread refuting it. are you going to make a thread every time a random person makes a random claim?
Hot_Bid this thread is not about tasteless and daniel Lee Attackzerg is derailing it into that, I opened the thread on the question "what is strategy (aka build).
For example Chill and city42 is talking on topic, in compare to what Attackzerg is posting you can see the difference on topic
You repeat "REALLY LOW LEVEL" like 50 times in this thread, and spent a ton of posts, words, and energy refuting this proposition that nobody is even really defending. I don't see whats the point of this thread when 90% of what the OP says is off topic. I'm going to close it then.
Don't take my words out of context, the quote was about me explaining how I learned about the idea of a strategy is objective focused. The process of how I came to this understanding is important, it provides backgrounds on my prespective
Look, it's clear you have some agenda against whoever said DLee / Tasteless had "really low level" strategy, and you're opening a thread to refute some remark by one or two posters, and disguising it as some theoretical discussion of what "strategy" or "build" means.
If you want to remake this thread please be clear on what you want it to be, a discussion about strategical casting or how to define certain terms.
EPT
sorry.
