|
On September 28 2010 08:37 barnaby wrote:
You have three people to thank for 4 gate being so popular. The infamous youtube noob friendly Husky and HD for posting numerous How To videos on the 4gate because it's the only strategy Husky can understand.
Also, Day9 has an entire daily dedicated to 4gate strategies.
All of the fanboys for any of these e-famous streamers/youtubers will mindlessly listen to them without trying things out for themselves. Little to no thought is going on about the efficiency.
This is all tied in with the fact that even bronze level players can feel like they're macroing well by keeping money low with 4 gates because they can't truly afford them.
must every thread have totally unnecessary husky rage in it?
|
Honestly, 4 gate on 1 base is a sort of an all in build, and if you try to push against that or be greedy and get killed out in the open, you deserve to lose. What happened to the scout -> adapt algorithm? Also, I understand how it must be difficult for zerg to live through a 4 gate, but terrans? come on.
|
People usually learn the game by picking a few builds per MU that work in many situations and repeating them every game.
It just so happens that 4gate:
1) Can win outright without having to learn transitions
2) Works in every MU
3) Can be done regardless of what the opponent does
And is thus the ideal newbiebuild or laddergrind build.
|
On September 28 2010 11:03 ZidaneTribal wrote:
^lol thats cuz u 4 gated ur way to platinum when ur actual level is lower
Yep that's what I was getting at
|
We should really change this thread title to "Why is this thread still open?"
This question was asked and answered in the 1st page.
This has gotten pretty tiresome.
|
Answer: because Terrans always do 3rax (1 reactor so it's like 4rax) or 4rax from 1 base. w/o 4 gates you die so P just ends up going 4 gate by default.
|
Because it's so easy to do and can be so very effective if done properly. If a zerg player doesn't scout it, scouts too early, or scouts too late. Bam GG, and even then if they do scout it, it still takes the preparedness and knowledge of how to defeat and counter it.
|
On September 28 2010 16:41 vnlegend wrote:
Answer: because Terrans always do 3rax (1 reactor so it's like 4rax) or 4rax from 1 base. w/o 4 gates you die so P just ends up going 4 gate by default.
lol u do u even play toss? 4 gate does not beat 3rax.... 3gate robo is the proper counter. (unless your talking about maps like BS where you can warp in from both sides and dual prong atk/harass.
|
Every time I'm up against 4 warpgate the same thing happen:
1. I go 2 gate > robo > gate with emphasis on zealots.
2. He tries to break my ramp and fails miserably due to forcefield.
3. My obs sees him expanding.
4. I push out with 2 colossi and it's over.
I'm by no means a great player, around 1k diamond, but with the benefits of a ramp and forcefields it's really easy to fend off.
|
Since every protoss is doing 4GW push, now every terran is doing dumblessly cloacked banshees.
|
On September 28 2010 17:05 hifriend wrote:
Every time I'm up against 4 warpgate the same thing happen:
1. I go 2 gate > robo > gate with emphasis on zealots.
2. He tries to break my ramp and fails miserably due to forcefield.
3. My obs sees him expanding.
4. I push out with 2 colossi and it's over.
I'm by no means a great player, around 1k diamond, but with the benefits of a ramp and forcefields it's really easy to fend off.
againts 4 warp gate u should actually go 3 gate collosus.
because 2 gate robo means somewhat FE. And if its a 4gate u want to stay in base as long as possible, until his 4gate momentum dies off and you have collosus.
|
On September 28 2010 15:38 Subversion wrote:
We should really change this thread title to "Why is this thread still open?"
This question was asked and answered in the 1st page.
This has gotten pretty tiresome.
OP here. very good point. Had no intention of creating some whine/moan flamefest threadnaught. so sorry to TL that this is how it's turned out.
I wish the OP could close his own threads when he has the answers and the discussion has taken its course fully.. and now starts repeating..
|
[QUOTE] On September 28 2010 00:07 Scrimpton wrote:
[QUOTE]On September 28 2010 00:00 KirbyToss wrote:
[QUOTE]On September 27 2010 23:50 Scrimpton wrote:
[QUOTE]On September 27 2010 23:47 KirbyToss wrote:
[QUOTE]On September 27 2010 23:41 Scrimpton wrote:
[QUOTE]On September 27 2010 23:38 KirbyToss wrote:
All I can say is that I have never had a problem with this build and stats are just numbers.  I would be happy to show you what I can do with a 4gate macro build though.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure where you are going with this post.
"stats are just numbers" - is that even an argument? If your argument is that:
"despite 4gate being economically unstable at best, it's ease of use in allowing you to take less punishment from missing production cycles makes up for this, allowing me to keep pressure on"
Then i'd have to say i'm understanding you.
However, from your post all i can gather is "wut number??"[/QUOTE]
From the way your talking about production cycles and perfect macro I am assuming you are simulating a robot playing, going 4warpgate, and producing 4 units every chance it gets, which is quite amusing because if any build requires cut units in order to accomplish what your doing. Such as tech, production or expanding.[/QUOTE]
Other than the fact that 4gate isn't known for being used in able to effectively transition, i agree with you.
However because this discussion is infact about 4gate, and not transition based econimally friendly builds, I still feel that "i'm right and you are wrong" :D. If I was expecting 100% upkeep and within 1-2% of the minerals/gas mined then maybe your robot argument might be correct, however in this case, we are talking about a 50% mineral shortage, that's not a case of robot vs human. That's a case of Lazy vs Skilled.
Moving on, those extra units in the initial push from the 4gate, can't they be built from gates 1-2-3 from the money and time saved by not waiting for 4 gates? probably not.
This leads me back to an earlier thought "considering so many people can deal with 4 gate well now, why is it still so popular?" - and i guess the answer is, for every player who puts in the effort learning how to deal with this strategy, and similar early pushes, there's 100 players who don't have a clue.
[/QUOTE]
You don't even know how to friggin' quote properly and you expect me to trust your math, which is not even your own (in fact, it's a combination of multiple people's math, which was then compiled into a computer program by yet another person who added some of his own math to the overall equation)? None of the math has been checked by you or anyone else for that matter. Nor have variables that actually occur in a game been accounted for, such as losing units in battle and not having to reproduce supply for them, when and what you're using chrono-boost on, when to cut probes, or how to accurately account for stockpiling minerals while warp-gates build (yeah, I know...you made-up some mumbo-jumbo math that has no validity). Some of this math that the program was based on was actually done when the game first released and doesn't take into account changes that have been made by subsequent patches.
On top of all of this, which btw completely disproves the accuracy and validity of this program, friggin' top pros such as Kiwi-Kaki and Huk use it. You're basically saying that they're wrong and they could do the exact same thing with three gates, but when they go three gates, they will get other tech such as a robo bay. You wanna know why? Because they have extra minerals/gas. I know, amazing.
|
It doesn't matter how many units you can constantly produce, it matters how many units you can produce per production cycle because they (wait for it) are warped in at your proxy pylon. 4 units reinforcing your push is 33% better than 3 units reinforcing your push.
Note that it's timed so that you have 4 gateways as soon as your research finishes, which should be a clue that it's not about getting 4 unit producing structures as much as it is about getting 4 unit warping structures.
You don't even know how to friggin' quote properly
Epic irony is epic?
|
On September 28 2010 18:27 kojinshugi wrote:It doesn't matter how many units you can constantly produce, it matters how many units you can produce per production cycle because they (wait for it) are warped in at your proxy pylon. 4 units reinforcing your push is 33% better than 3 units reinforcing your push. Note that it's timed so that you have 4 gateways as soon as your research finishes, which should be a clue that it's not about getting 4 unit producing structures as much as it is about getting 4 unit warping structures. Epic irony is epic?
Hey, you try quoting that post! It exploded due to too many mathematical errors...or something.
|
Devolved, your name really fits what has happened to your Brain and nervous system since you were first conceived on that ill fated night.
End yourself before others take pity.
|
On September 28 2010 18:33 Scrimpton wrote:
Devolved, your name really fits what has happened to your Brain and nervous system since you were first conceived on that ill fated night.
End yourself before others take pity.
I don't understand why you're so vehemently defending math that is not even your own. In addition, you have not even checked it...or checked that the variables are correct...or confirmed there are no bugs in the program....or updated it to current patch specifications, nor has anyone. You must have been one of those kids that got someone else to do their algebra homework. Then when the teacher flunked you, you tried to defend the work as correct even though you had no idea what was even written. But in your defense, your teacher had a silly name so you must have been right!
|
On September 28 2010 18:47 Devolved wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 18:33 Scrimpton wrote:
Devolved, your name really fits what has happened to your Brain and nervous system since you were first conceived on that ill fated night.
End yourself before others take pity. I don't understand why you're so vehemently defending math that is not even your own. In addition, you have not even checked it...or checked that the variables are correct...or confirmed there are no bugs in the program....or updated it to current patch specifications, nor has anyone. You must have been one of those kids that got someone else to do their algebra homework. Then when the teacher flunked you, you tried to defend the work as correct even though you had no idea what was even written. But in your defense, your teacher had a silly name so you must have been right!
Link to patch notes where they changed minerals mined per trip from 19 down to today's 5. I don't remember that one. P.s the maths of the tool is updated to patch 1.1, i believe taken from the liquipedia for the most part. (you know that reservoir of knowledge.
Nice use of the word 'Vehemently' though, although it's a shame that at this current time, I'm rather lackadaisical about the subject, since the thread was brought about to a close in discussion around 10 pages ago.
If you are so sure of yourself, and can find evidence that the maths is wrong, I implore you to help out the community by shining your torch of truth in the thread of aforementioned tool.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=155279
Of course, if you are just here to flame and bitch, carry on, nobody (without admin power) is able to stop you it would seem.
|
I'm not going to comment on whether or not the mathematics is wrong, but the premises used to calculate it are definitely wrong.
As far as I can tell, full saturation (24 probes on Minerals + 6 on 2 gas) was assumed. During a 4 gate push, no one is planning on expanding afterwards, it is an all-in attack, you want to end it right there, but the original post uses constant probe production and constant supply production (and a 2:2:1 zealot:stalker:sentinel mix) in its calculations. Cutting probes instantly drops the calculation result to 121% minerals and 139% gas.
Under these circumstances 3 gate would use 91% and 104%, underutilising the incoming resources, which is bad for an all-in attack.
If you assume that some of your units attacking will die (a good assumption, otherwise you have already won), then you don't need to continue producing pylons (or can produce them more slowly). Without producing additional pylons a 4:2:1 ratio of zealots, stalkers and sentries uses 99% minerals and 101% gas.
Once your units are dying roughly as fast as you are producing them, 4 gates is perfect, with a slight mineral excess and slight gas deficit (1% each way). That is why three gates are not used, units die and it is all-in so you cut all probe production, as you aren't planning an expansion or other follow up.
Your original assumptions were off, so your conclusions were off.
That is a nice tool you linked though, thanks for that.
|
easy to execute and very effective
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
