EPTThe 100 Four Gate Challenge - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Suerte
United States117 Posts
| ||
|
bobcat
United States488 Posts
| ||
|
FetTerBender
Germany1393 Posts
On November 25 2010 06:41 creamwolf wrote: PS if you think microing blink stalkers are hard then you are retarded. You wont be around long with that attitude on TL =) BTT: Blink Stalkers are a very strong opener used in the correct timing frame, for the Stalkers outrange roaches and the blink makes marauders concussive shells a lot less effective, if not nullifies it. Blink stalkers in masses and microed godly are like Foxers Marines: Pretty hard to deal with =) | ||
|
bobcat
United States488 Posts
On November 25 2010 06:08 mvpAKAenvyME wrote: Yes, maybe it is harder to try and micro marines against banelings, but that is completley subjective as well. Same thing goes for the forcefields, define a good forcefield. What if all you needed to do was block your ramp for 20 seconds and you had 5 sentries? Would it be really hard to get a couple "good forcefields" off? I am saying, zerg requires strategy and tactics much more than terran and protoss do. They need open field advantage, need to be able to get their flank on. It may not be "harder" to play zerg, but it is certainly more challenging to play zerg the way they are supposed to be played. I am inclined to disagree with you there. No offense, but your opinion sounds like that of someone who has never played P/T at a high level. Terrans have to put pressure on zergs when they play against them and Protoss players have to anticipate their every move to get the advantage. Read plexa's guide for the current PvZ environment and tell me that it's "more challenging" to play zerg. | ||
|
Parasite01
33 Posts
On November 24 2010 15:28 haegN wrote: You should try to do the challenge, maybe you will learn a thing or two about holding it off =) all you will learn is that if you take your opponent by surprise you won. even if you don't take them by surprise you can still sometimes win. oh shit, did i mention that it doesn't improve your ability to macro at all and it is a cheesy allin that will never teach you how to actualyl become good at this game? anyways cool challenge. IMO you should make one for zerg's & terrans IE: zerg can only 7RR or something along those lines. Dunno about T. | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
On November 24 2010 16:37 Jyon wrote: Isn't a hundred games... Kind of a lot? I mean really, that's a lot of games in a row to use the SAME freaking build. I think I might die of boredom ;( you might also become a REALLY REALLY good player due to it. I think this is a really good idea but I dont know if I have the discipline or patience to 4 gate 100 times... or any build 100 times in a row | ||
|
Suerte
United States117 Posts
| ||
|
mvpAKAenvyME
Canada179 Posts
On November 25 2010 07:17 bobcat wrote: I am inclined to disagree with you there. No offense, but your opinion sounds like that of someone who has never played P/T at a high level. Terrans have to put pressure on zergs when they play against them and Protoss players have to anticipate their every move to get the advantage. Read plexa's guide for the current PvZ environment and tell me that it's "more challenging" to play zerg. Maybe you're right, I have never played P/T at a high level, probably because I play random at a high level. And to be honest, out of all the races, zerg is BY FAR the hardest race for me to play, and not because of macro or economy type problems. (because SC2 is a far easier game than SCBW due to all the automation making the little problems encountered in BW a thing of the past) but because of the tactics involved in successfully pulling off a win as zerg in a mid-late game scenario. Protoss and terran players have something to strive for when they play zerg. Be it a huge bio ball, or a mech build, or even bcs and ravens. Protoss can go for the collossi death ball, mothership play, templars, you know what I'm talking about. But zerg, it doesnt seem to have something to strive for when I play it, you are constantly having to tech switch and adapt to the P/T play, because THAT is what zerg does, they adapt to the other races style of play. It was the same in BW, you see he goes mass MnM, you dont stick with muta/ling, you get lurkers and DS, teching to ultra/crackling combo. It's the exact same in SC2, just with different units that have different abilities. Zerg can still be extremley powerful to play, but also extremeley frustrating when you keep having to make tech switches and what not, while your opponent just keeps massing up balls of the same units. Zerg needs to harass much more than other races, meaning more micro intensive, the ability to know when to cut drones, when to expand without it getting sniped 2 minutes later is much harder to "master" than slowly seige pushing off 2 bases to secure your third base. Zerg need constant waves of attacks usually to hold off terran and protoss pushes, with most battles coming out relatively even...it just seems MUCH more difficult to gain a big enough lead that you can capitalize on and ride out for the win with zerg. | ||
|
Reptilia
Chile913 Posts
imo it would be much more interesting and viable than ...4gate... which, atleast as terran, its the easiest thing to hold. | ||
|
DarkOmen
Canada72 Posts
I've heard several times that progamers (particularly in Korea) practice the crap out of one build to perfect it, find out what it works against, and what its weaknesses are. I used to start off each game deciding on a whim what strat to use, and try to win that game alone. I did okay, but I sort of hit a plateau. So I decided to try 1 strategy across the board, regardless of MU or map. Not only did I quickly learn how I needed to adapt it or, in some cases, scrap it altogether, my mechanics and game sense increased dramatically. My point is that doing the same strat over and over will teach you things about the game. It removes one variable from an incredibly complex system and allows you to better understand its depth. I think this is what Day[9] is always talking about when he says to just plant a stake in the ground, and declare that you WILL attack at 50 food. Then you have a baseline to which you can compare slight variations, and when your mechanics smooth out, as they're bound to over 100 games, you'll be able to understand timings better as well. Now, 100 games is a LOT, and I personally tweak my strat more often than that, but as has been stated, that's why it's a challenge! :p To OP: I like the initiative, and would be interested in seeing more in the future! | ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
| ||
|
Debo
United States95 Posts
The ability to rax before supply depo? Large % of players doing "X" strategy + high win % = Terrible TERRIBLE Nerfage. You've been warned toss. | ||
|
mvpAKAenvyME
Canada179 Posts
On November 25 2010 07:58 DarkOmen wrote: I see a lot of people saying this will "deteriorate" the player's skill, or it will, at the least, not increase his/her skill and land them amongst far superior players. But I have to respectfully disagree. I've heard several times that progamers (particularly in Korea) practice the crap out of one build to perfect it, find out what it works against, and what its weaknesses are. I used to start off each game deciding on a whim what strat to use, and try to win that game alone. I did okay, but I sort of hit a plateau. So I decided to try 1 strategy across the board, regardless of MU or map. Not only did I quickly learn how I needed to adapt it or, in some cases, scrap it altogether, my mechanics and game sense increased dramatically. My point is that doing the same strat over and over will teach you things about the game. It removes one variable from an incredibly complex system and allows you to better understand its depth. I think this is what Day[9] is always talking about when he says to just plant a stake in the ground, and declare that you WILL attack at 50 food. Then you have a baseline to which you can compare slight variations, and when your mechanics smooth out, as they're bound to over 100 games, you'll be able to understand timings better as well. Now, 100 games is a LOT, and I personally tweak my strat more often than that, but as has been stated, that's why it's a challenge! :p To OP: I like the initiative, and would be interested in seeing more in the future! Exactly. I think a lot of people who are on this site know what they are talking about. But I think 10x more of them have no fucking clue what they are talking about. | ||
|
NoMicro
Canada69 Posts
I see a lot of places I can improve upon right off the top to my play, so worrying about that, and not the usual builds I employ can make thinking about my play a bit easier in-game. Ahh, here's my replays; (Low level Platinum.) It'll be nice to have a timeline to track my own progress. http://www.mediafire.com/?zik44bd4r1wqrtr Oh, and if you want to practice against the 4-gate build, Ill count those as my games. May as well improve, and help someone learn how to hold it off. =D | ||
|
ROOTdrewbie
Canada1392 Posts
| ||
|
Tianx
United States1196 Posts
On November 25 2010 08:24 drewbie.root wrote: please dont encourage 4gating omg =[ hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha | ||
|
ePAttack
United States112 Posts
NonY's dual stargate build. 2gate robo fast collosi. I find this challenge a bit silly IMO. | ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
On November 25 2010 07:04 Suerte wrote: This thread would be better served teaching our Protoss friends to expand more. Attempt an FE in every game for 100 games, this will make you a better player. Besides, 4 gate is easy to stop by every race but Protoss. FE is far more fun than four gating, but four gating on backdoor maps is quite easy and strong. I find it kind of bad against good players if you try to bust their front with it. You generally have to completely surprise them or they just hunker down and repel. | ||
|
mvpAKAenvyME
Canada179 Posts
On November 25 2010 08:24 drewbie.root wrote: please dont encourage 4gating omg =[ Why does it matter? I guess we should all discourage VR's, DT's, Banshee's as well then right? It's not THAT unstoppable. Seriously, I wonder what Boxer (not that fag Foxer) but the real guy would say to us if he were reading this, or Nada, or F-dealer, or nestea, I don't think any of them would have anything bad to say about. Sure it may not be the hardest strategy to impliment, but don't fucking wine and cry about it just because you lose a few games to it. It's like any other strategy, if you lose 20 games in a row to the same person doing the exact same thing every game, you're gonna be pissed, learn to ADAPT, please. This thread should be closed. | ||
|
mvpAKAenvyME
Canada179 Posts
On November 25 2010 08:34 FlakeyGiraffe wrote: Why do a build that we know already works? do something more unorthodox like: NonY's dual stargate build. 2gate robo fast collosi. I find this challenge a bit silly IMO. The reason why we "do a build" that already works, is because it's a GAME, and you can do WHATEVER THE FUCK you want in that game while you're playing. It's not like 4 gate build is some uber 1337 hax and you're CHEATING to win everytime you use it. You could build 10 proxy nexus' and pure probes and rush them with that and win if you wanted (not saying its viable, but seriously) just trying to get the point across that I, and ANYONE else can do anything they want in a 1v1. So stop whining about it. And if you still wanna whine about it, go back to BW. Nuff said. | ||
| ||
