|
Hey all,
i have know a win rate of 71% with a variation of the hammer build i create.
10 Supply
12 Rax --> 2 marines then TL
12 Gas
13 SCV scout!
16 OC
16 Supply (wall)
19 Factory
with this BO in can scout the proxy oracle or other proxy.
When i see proxy oracle (6prob/2gaz before cyber) and not enought pylon. I cut VCS after the finish of OC to 4:10. And build E-bay at 4:20 and turette finish before the oracle come in my mineral line. at the same time i do the push like hammer.
with that i crush all proxy oracle.
Sorry for my english
I like your BO HAMMER THANK's a lot!
If people want to prove you build it's not good they have to beat you 3 times in BO3. In addition they have an advantage they know the strategy hammer will do.
People have to stop critic if they have not the capacity to do that!
|
|
|
I don't disagree with this. The marine version of the build is definitely better at denying scouting. My point was that Hammer is opposed to responding to legitimate criticism when it is made - my criticism of the early version of this build was very legit and he refused to acknowledge it - and this made Pirfiktshon's posts seem really dumb.
Actually hammer has made refinement to the build and it was in answer to my post of the MSC poke. The dumbest comment made was the "I beat some random scrub on ladder so your build needs work" statement.... When he actually played some random low level plat using the old build on a map that hasn't been used since 2013.... That's where the stupidity came in and you decided to jump in on it by stating that you have legit criticism of an old build that isn't really suppose to be used anymore.....
|
On February 06 2015 01:30 Pirfiktshon wrote:Show nested quote +I don't disagree with this. The marine version of the build is definitely better at denying scouting. My point was that Hammer is opposed to responding to legitimate criticism when it is made - my criticism of the early version of this build was very legit and he refused to acknowledge it - and this made Pirfiktshon's posts seem really dumb. Actually hammer has made refinement to the build and it was in answer to my post of the MSC poke. The dumbest comment made was the "I beat some random scrub on ladder so your build needs work" statement.... When he actually played some random low level plat using the old build on a map that hasn't been used since 2013.... That's where the stupidity came in and you decided to jump in on it by stating that you have legit criticism of an old build that isn't really suppose to be used anymore.....
Hammer has still ignored both of my posts where I give legitimate criticism of his build compared to more standard ones in a civilized manner. Honestly it just comes off as a bit immature and stubborn. I main Zerg but I've been playing Terran this season and I'm not so sure I like his build compared to the more mainstream mine drop or tech lab reactor rax play.
Being creative is nice, but that doesn't mean it's a very good build.
|
I send you a message Hammer. See you on battlenet
|
Hammer has still ignored both of my posts where I give legitimate criticism of his build compared to more standard ones in a civilized manner. Honestly it just comes off as a bit immature and stubborn. I main Zerg but I've been playing Terran this season and I'm not so sure I like his build compared to the more mainstream mine drop or tech lab reactor rax play.
Being creative is nice, but that doesn't mean it's a very good build.
What criticism do you have? Maybe I can help I use this build with really really good success even in practice agianst Protoss masters players....
Edit: If you are referring to this criticism
Hammer I like you and you're a nice guy and I don't particularly agree with the presentation of the counterarguments, but I do have to disagree with you.
Your build is more of a one hit wonder to me and is in my opinion, less viable and holds less longevity throughout the game compared to the more standard:
Reaper FE into 3 rax which can stop oracles and gives you a fast core army
1/1/1 mine drops that Koreans are starting to favor
Both these builds give great aggressive options, smooth transitions, and get your natural down at 3:25 while being safe.
Mine drops, IMO, can be integrated into any build and your massive mech push can be put akin to the more powerful SCV pulls.
There are strengths and weaknesses to every build the strength of the hammer build is the push that you do is strong enough that when microed properly will almost always do damage in one form or another.... Its also safe and hits at important timings of the protoss where they are especially weak when going for aggressive builds which can effect their timings harshly putting you ahead. I do this into bio with great success I have never played a match where I have not done damage with the initial push and come out behind. Now can I do this to parting and have the same results .... most likely not LOL
The fact of the matter is that it IS viable on ladder.
Simply put though I really like this build because it forces my opponent into detection and you can get some serious returns from good micro with this build.
|
Pirfiktshon, can you give us a replay you play a transition into bio. I think a lot of player will give a chance of this BO.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. You're relying on Protoss making a mistake or playing greedy. Not on your own control. It's a cheese, a gimmick. Acting like it remotely resembles standard, "good" play is ridiculous. Like I said, I know a lot about coming up with bullshit builds that get you high win-rates on ladder. The difference is that I'm honest enough to be up-front about the fact that they're bullshit.
I'm just waiting for one of you naysayers to actually prove it... thats all i'm asking if you prove it and take it from theory into practice then I'll have no leg to stand on as of yet you are all theory and no practice....
|
On February 06 2015 09:12 Pirfiktshon wrote:Show nested quote +Nope. You're relying on Protoss making a mistake or playing greedy. Not on your own control. It's a cheese, a gimmick. Acting like it remotely resembles standard, "good" play is ridiculous. Like I said, I know a lot about coming up with bullshit builds that get you high win-rates on ladder. The difference is that I'm honest enough to be up-front about the fact that they're bullshit. I'm just waiting for one of you naysayers to actually prove it... thats all i'm asking if you prove it then and take it from theory into practice then I'll have no leg to stand on as of yet you are all theory and no practice....
This.
The good thing about this build that differentiates it from cheese is that it has a follow-up plan to transition into a macro game. The opening is designed to set up for that. The fact that Protoss has a correct response only proves that it's not OP, as it's far from an auto-loss if the Protoss responds correctly, and the Terran counter-responds correctly.
The critics of the build do not show nearly as much concrete evidence as the massive success that is shown with it when done right, even if the Protoss responds correctly. They also don't at all account for the variations of it that can be done depending on the map.
Technically neither side can really prove much about its pro-level viability since no one at that level has really attempted it (and no attempting doesn't prove anything except that pros have several other reasons for following standard play for the most part, and the ones that don't usually use their own stuff, not the stuff of others). The side of success with the build has a lot more gameplay evidence than the side that calls it bad, though.
|
thank's a lot Pirfiktshon !!!!
|
On February 06 2015 10:03 NinjaDuckBob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 09:12 Pirfiktshon wrote:Nope. You're relying on Protoss making a mistake or playing greedy. Not on your own control. It's a cheese, a gimmick. Acting like it remotely resembles standard, "good" play is ridiculous. Like I said, I know a lot about coming up with bullshit builds that get you high win-rates on ladder. The difference is that I'm honest enough to be up-front about the fact that they're bullshit. I'm just waiting for one of you naysayers to actually prove it... thats all i'm asking if you prove it then and take it from theory into practice then I'll have no leg to stand on as of yet you are all theory and no practice.... This. The good thing about this build that differentiates it from cheese is that it has a follow-up plan to transition into a macro game. The opening is designed to set up for that. The fact that Protoss has a correct response only proves that it's not OP, as it's far from an auto-loss if the Protoss responds correctly, and the Terran counter-responds correctly. The critics of the build do not show nearly as much concrete evidence as the massive success that is shown with it when done right, even if the Protoss responds correctly. They also don't at all account for the variations of it that can be done depending on the map. Technically neither side can really prove much about its pro-level viability since no one at that level has really attempted it (and no attempting doesn't prove anything except that pros have several other reasons for following standard play for the most part, and the ones that don't usually use their own stuff, not the stuff of others). The side of success with the build has a lot more gameplay evidence than the side that calls it bad, though.
Do we have to simply pull up hundreds of replays of pros not doing this and preferring the tech lab reactor play or mine drop builds?
I don't play Protoss I dual race T and Z but I'm sure Sated (who has played against pros before) is both extremely credible, honest, and has probably faced this build before on the ladder.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll admit even this one that was allowed to stay up is very vague for a "guide."
It gives a BO for about 5 minutes, then says "do drops," then says "your infrastructure should look like this and here's your end army," with a few pictures and then a long list of replays. You give absolutely no details on how to transition from first attack to drop attacks to end game attack. This is poor guide writing.
My own guide that I posted here for ZvP I'd like to think has a lot of details and I work through the BO and how to react to many situations, early game mechanics, scouting, and a step by step what-to-do all the way up to 16-17 minutes.
*Shrug*
Can you give any details following the first (gimmicky) attack on how to build up your infrastructure for the drop attacks? Any gas timings? Factory and barracks timings? Third expo timings? How do you time your starport so the medivacs come out at an exact time? When do you throw down the last of your infrastructure and optimally build up to this 14-15 minute mech attack?
You need to put details into your guide if you want to take any pride in it. I was afraid to state this earlier until this gentleman pointed all these closed threads out.
|
On February 06 2015 18:43 SatedSC2 wrote:
Like I said already, I have nothing against builds being cheesy. I think they add variety to the game and I use a lot of stupid builds myself. I just take exception to people acting as if their gimmicky builds can/could/should be standard when they're clearly not. It's disingenuous.
I've been using this build as a diascrub it has been working for me, it does seem like a bit of a gimmicky opening but i think thats pretty much because terran has been bottle necked into essentially 1 [viable] build due to the variety of [viable] protoss openings, so anything other than reaper>reactor>mine drop expand just seems way out there.
IMO its only cheesy if its absolutely a loss when scouted and reacted to, like 6 pool vs standard, but not proxy oracle, by old SC standards proxying a tech building is seen as straight up cheesey, but because of how damn good it is, the fact that toss can transition out of it, and that its still alright vs "standard" once scouted. its basically a staple of pvt in pro-scene.
can it be shut down by standard safe protoss play, figuring out what terran is doing in game?
http://imbabuilds.com/hots-protoss/hots-pvt/pvt-rains-1gate-fe/
is that the standard? if so then zealot mothership core stalker pokes can be very risky, mine at top of the ramp and maruader waiting in the natural to catch something with concussive shells.
ofcourse all this is just nooby speculation. Have pros tested it and decided its garbage that's why they don't do it? I doubt it. People understandably follow the pro play style, anything else is seen as unviable trash, until a pro does it a couple times.
I would love to see a pro-toss vs another pro doing this build.
maybe it is just trash for ladder only, but god damn its fun!
and yes put more details in, I had to watch your replays to understand how the follow up works, ive been doing (post push) 2 cc's fast followed by taking the last 3 gasses, then heading towards your production facilities going for what i need first ,i.e bunkers seige tanks hellions if he looks to counter immediatly, priority on ghosts if he is massing immortals and sentrys, priority on vikings if he is quick teching to collosus etc
|
On February 06 2015 18:00 Jakamakala wrote:Do we have to simply pull up hundreds of replays of pros not doing this and preferring the tech lab reactor play or mine drop builds?
I don't play Protoss I dual race T and Z but I'm sure Sated (who has played against pros before) is both extremely credible, honest, and has probably faced this build before on the ladder.
Absence of evidence does not prove a case, regardless of theory and theorist. Take early-stage balance tests for example -- there are credible pros that disagree with each other all the time, it takes extensive testing to reach a valid conclusion, and even then something can pop up later that makes that conclusion at least partially invalid.
On February 06 2015 18:43 SatedSC2 wrote:Having a transition means that it isn't all-in, it doesn't mean that it isn't cheesy. I hate to go back to the Dark Templar example but it is clear that Dark Templar rushes also have transitions and yet they're still considered cheese.
Like I said already, I have nothing against builds being cheesy. I think they add variety to the game and I use a lot of stupid builds myself. I just take exception to people acting as if their gimmicky builds can/could/should be standard when they're clearly not. It's disingenuous.
Cheese and gimmick are mostly opinion-based terms. Every early attack or non-standard strategy is labeled under cheese or gimmick by someone or another. My personal definition of cheese is something meant to end the game right in the earliest stages, and many players share that same definition.
That being said, by definition, if something is not widely used, it is not standard. However, that alone does not prove one way or the other that it could or couldn't work as standard were it widely used (and used correctly). Standard play has continuously evolved from the beginning of the game, and things are added onto that foundation (example: MMM is the foundation for 4M, MMMVG, Bio/Tank, and Bio/Thor/Hellbat) or the same foundation is varied slightly and added to (Marine/Tank). If something is found later to work as a different foundation not similar to the standard foundation, it will usually never be standard, as the founding standard paths are for the most part already set from the original strategies developed from the game release.
For this reason, regardless of viability, non-standard play will never be as refined as standard play as it is not widely developed in pro play.
|
On February 06 2015 18:43 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 09:12 Pirfiktshon wrote:Nope. You're relying on Protoss making a mistake or playing greedy. Not on your own control. It's a cheese, a gimmick. Acting like it remotely resembles standard, "good" play is ridiculous. Like I said, I know a lot about coming up with bullshit builds that get you high win-rates on ladder. The difference is that I'm honest enough to be up-front about the fact that they're bullshit. I'm just waiting for one of you naysayers to actually prove it... thats all i'm asking if you prove it and take it from theory into practice then I'll have no leg to stand on as of yet you are all theory and no practice.... I'm not sure what you want me to prove. I've only ever lost to this build once and that's the first time I played against it. I've not lost to it since. Hell, I've not faced it in several months and that's mostly because when I do come up against a dedicated Mine-based cheese on ladder then it is Lillekanin's build. Lillekanin's build - and it is easy to spot this if you know anything about how Protoss works - poses far more threat than the 2x Marine version of this build does, and since it's possible to hold Lillekanin's build with a standard 1 Gate FE opening then will also be possible to hold Hammer's 2x Marine build that way. The Marauder/Mine version was actually a stronger cheese in the sense that it was an unexpected composition at an unexpected timing that could easily catch people out. Delaying the Marauders by getting 2 Marines significantly weakens the timing this build can hit in order to delay scouting, which is stupid because if Hammer is so confident in the strength of the attack then he wouldn't need to deny scouting. The fact that he adjusted the build to deny scouting shows that it is a cheese because a "good"/"standard"/"non-gimmicky" build doesn't rely on scouting being denied. Like I said already, I have no problem believing that you can get high win-rates on ladder with this build, but that doesn't stop it from being a gimmick. I get a lot of wins with Dark Templar rushes, doesn't make it any less cheesy when I do it! EDIT: Show nested quote +The good thing about this build that differentiates it from cheese is that it has a follow-up plan to transition into a macro game. The opening is designed to set up for that. The fact that Protoss has a correct response only proves that it's not OP, as it's far from an auto-loss if the Protoss responds correctly, and the Terran counter-responds correctly. Having a transition means that it isn't all-in, it doesn't mean that it isn't cheesy. I hate to go back to the Dark Templar example but it is clear that Dark Templar rushes also have transitions and yet they're still considered cheese. Like I said already, I have nothing against builds being cheesy. I think they add variety to the game and I use a lot of stupid builds myself. I just take exception to people acting as if their gimmicky builds can/could/should be standard when they're clearly not. It's disingenuous.
I find it funny that you're comparing a legitimate build like this to Protoss cheese like Dark Templars which require little to no APM or strategy as they're permanently invisible for you. You must loose to this build a lot more than you let on.
This build isn't all-in or cheese.
|
The joy of seeing people discuss if a build is an all-in or a cheese without defining cheese or all-in first...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
