|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
Lmao your wikipedia link has an "s" in it instead of a c. But it's both I believe.
On August 24 2011 02:29 Teim wrote:Protoss are looking at the 1 / 1 / 1 all wrong. If you honestly cannot think of a way that you beat the 1 / 1 / 1 in a head on fight (which I still feel is debatable), you need to look for solutions else where. It's like how Zergs couldn't work out how to handle the Protoss deathball. Eventually however, the solution came: Don't let the Protoss ever get to the deathball. During this time we started seeing Zergs doing all sorts roach / ling all-inns against greedy Protoss builds. Protoss was forced to play safer builds and these days we rarely see the deathball. Warning: Spoiler about GSL games. + Show Spoiler +Genius in the GSL last night showed some void ray all-inn builds that can destroy the 1 / 1 / 1 before it can reach the critical mass (game 2). The void ray all-inn is also a solid build against other Terran builds as shown in game 3. If Protoss start doing this (and other creative all-inns), you're going to force Terrans to change their playstyle to much safer builds.
Um, there was no 1/1/1 all-in in any of those games except for a tank/marine push in game 1. 1/1/1 can counter the 3 gate voidray and instant win afterwards.
On August 24 2011 02:30 Daniel C wrote:A: 1/1/1 is unstoppable. B: Player X held the 1/1/1. A: Ah, but that wasn't a well-executed 1/1/1. No true ScotsmanNo one is going to execute it perfectly below high GM. Both sides can screw up, isn't that part of the game?
That's why people are discussing its execution at high GM? No one is complaining that they can't beat it in diamond.
|
On August 24 2011 02:30 Daniel C wrote:A: 1/1/1 is unstoppable. B: Player X held the 1/1/1. A: Ah, but that wasn't a well-executed 1/1/1. No true ScotsmanNo one is going to execute it perfectly below high GM. Both sides can screw up, isn't that part of the game?
This thread, and balance discussions in general, are about the highest level. Balance matters little on lower levels on ladder because Blizzard's matchmaker will hide it from you anyway.
As for considering it a no true scotsman, rephrase it like this.
A: A 1/1/1 without significant errors is unstoppable.
B: Player X held the 1/1/1.
A: Player Y made Z significant error.
Still haven't seen an example of a game without any where it was held.
|
On August 24 2011 02:33 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:27 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 02:23 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 02:19 somadbro wrote:
I think it was obvious that I meant the top 3 in terms of finish....
No, it's not obvious.
and give me proof of a player who has said "i spam inefficiently when its the most important part of a game"
First you use average APM, now you talk about APM when it matters. White-Ra has good APM when it matters, but according to you isn't a top player because his average APM is under 150.
I never at any point said high APM = skill. I never at any point said that players who have APM = good. I never at any point said that if you have a high APM you will be good.
You seem to think you require high average apm to be good though, which is complete nonsense. High apm when it matters, yes, overall, no. At least half of the APM from players like MMA, MC and Losira is spam, not important clicks. i never said average apm was an indicator of skill. i never said that you need high APM to be good. I said that players who are top level players, generally speaking, have high apm and don't spam inefficiently. inefficient is the keyword in that sentence. it means that they spam, but it does not interfere with their ability to play the game. players who spam inefficiently are actually hampering themselves. do you start to see my point? If you do actions that you don't need or doesn't help you doing anything, then you're spamming. Pretty much every pro-players are spamming and you absolutely can't say "Oh, Puma played better than MC cuz he had a better APM" because the difference of APM between both of them is most likely useless actions. (i'm not even sure you're the one who said something like that but still, i just wanted to say it)
I said nothing even remotely close to anything resembling an argument in opposition to what you just argued.
In fact I already made the point that the players are spamming.
My point is entirely related to the idea of efficiency.
nothing anyone has said has brought that into consideration, and thus every attempt at a counter-argument has actually been completely invalid.
At no point in time was the use of APM ever brought up by myself as a point of impact on the game between MC and Puma. It was initially mentioned solely in relation to Puma and that the build isn't 'a-move and win' as someone had said.
|
On August 24 2011 02:30 Daniel C wrote:A: 1/1/1 is unstoppable. B: Player X held the 1/1/1. A: Ah, but that wasn't a well-executed 1/1/1. No true ScotsmanNo one is going to execute it perfectly below high GM. Both sides can screw up, isn't that part of the game?
so, basically, if I go in a gold league, beat a guy trying to 1/1/1 me and post the replay here, it would be a proof that the build isn't imbalance because obviously it's not unstoppable ?
is it what you're trying to say ? ^^
|
On August 24 2011 02:20 naventus wrote:
Again, I think it makes no sense for the solution to involve robotics until 9+m. None of the robotics tech is immediately useful, when a forge + 1-2 cannon would be enough, so that your gas can go into more appropriate tech (probably citadel+charge+archons).
Ok, so, I don't have observers, he has cloack banshee. I have to put one on each mineral line and one to detect in fight. Tanks kill it, now ?
Robo tech = 100
+2 obs = 100
+1 immortal = 100
I have 300 gaz, I can put twilight, upgrade charge, but I'm not having archons. In minerals, 450 for canons, 150 for twilight, 200 for charge = 700 minerals, while robo = 200 + 50 (obs) + 250 (immortel) = 500, I have two more zealots, real detection and my immortal can take some tanks's shots
So stop spreading misinformations.
|
On August 24 2011 02:20 naventus wrote:
Again, I think it makes no sense for the solution to involve robotics until 9+m. None of the robotics tech is immediately useful, when a forge + 1-2 cannon would be enough, so that your gas can go into more appropriate tech (probably citadel+charge+archons).
If you don't make a robotics you don't know if it's a siege expand or a bfh drop or a rfh drop. You don't know if its tech lab reactor 2/1/1 into mass marine + medivac or stim + ghost. You don't know if it's a 1/1/1 with a raven or banshees or with cloak or without cloak. You don't know anything, to be honest :/
Also, what is this 9+m? A 1/1/1 3 tank push can leave as early as 8:15, or at late as 8:45 if they opted for a raven instead of the banshee. What is the significance of a 9 minute observer? If you're getting it to scout the 1/1/1, it's too late because it's already halfway across the map or sieged outside of your natural
|
On August 24 2011 02:29 Teim wrote:Protoss are looking at the 1 / 1 / 1 all wrong. If you honestly cannot think of a way that you beat the 1 / 1 / 1 in a head on fight (which I still feel is debatable), you need to look for solutions else where. It's like how Zergs couldn't work out how to handle the Protoss deathball. Eventually however, the solution came: Don't let the Protoss ever get to the deathball. During this time we started seeing Zergs doing all sorts roach / ling all-inns against greedy Protoss builds. Protoss was forced to play safer builds and these days we rarely see the deathball. Warning: Spoiler about GSL games. + Show Spoiler +Genius in the GSL last night showed some void ray all-inn builds that can destroy the 1 / 1 / 1 before it can reach the critical mass (game 2). The void ray all-inn is also a solid build against other Terran builds as shown in game 3. If Protoss start doing this (and other creative all-inns), you're going to force Terrans to change their playstyle to much safer builds.
You're wrong about almost everything you said. o.O
Zerg solution to the deathball wasn't all-ining a greedy Protoss. It was exploiting the deathball's lack of mobility with drops and multi-pronged attacks. Down the line, they also figured out that dropping Banelings on a clumped up ball of Protoss units is very good, with bonus points if you manage to land some Fungals beforehand. Roach/Ling all-ins were just a fad exploiting unsafe openings, you barely see them around nowadays.
+ Show Spoiler + Virus didn't do the 1/1/1 in any of those games. In game 2 he did some kind of weirdo 2 rax into cloaked Banshee. The 1/1/1 actually does quite well against 3 Gate VR with good execution.
You can just all-in the Terran if he tries this on ladder, and it works a lot of the time. But on a really high level, players aren't going to screw up and lose. There's a game from MLG Columbus where Rain holds a 3 Gate VR from FXOz on Metalopolis with a 1/1/1 opening, if you're interested.
|
also note: if anyone here thinks they have solved this 1/1/1 build, shoot me a pm and I'll be happy to smash you with my off race terran xD
|
has it ever occured to any protoss that the build is insanely gas intensive. So why don't you guys just steal a geyser, and you'll practically ruin the entire timing of the build
|
On August 24 2011 02:35 Heavenly wrote:
LMAO your quote said Defense with an -s and not a -c and I don't click links but just make stupid posts that waste other peoples time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence
try that one then, capt. obvious.
|
On August 24 2011 02:42 Nightsz wrote:
has it ever occured to any protoss that the build is insanely gas intensive. So why don't you guys just steal a geyser, and you'll practically ruin the entire timing of the build
Yeah, no one ever thought of anything so simple!
It doesn't affect the timing. It slows down cloakshee tech but that's about it. It's a good idea if you have particular trouble with the cloakshee variant of it, but other than that it's pretty meaningless.
|
On August 24 2011 02:29 Teim wrote:Protoss are looking at the 1 / 1 / 1 all wrong. If you honestly cannot think of a way that you beat the 1 / 1 / 1 in a head on fight (which I still feel is debatable), you need to look for solutions else where. It's like how Zergs couldn't work out how to handle the Protoss deathball. Eventually however, the solution came: Don't let the Protoss ever get to the deathball. During this time we started seeing Zergs doing all sorts roach / ling all-inns against greedy Protoss builds. Protoss was forced to play safer builds and these days we rarely see the deathball. Warning: Spoiler about GSL games. + Show Spoiler +Genius in the GSL last night showed some void ray all-inn builds that can destroy the 1 / 1 / 1 before it can reach the critical mass (game 2). The void ray all-inn is also a solid build against other Terran builds as shown in game 3. If Protoss start doing this (and other creative all-inns), you're going to force Terrans to change their playstyle to much safer builds.
I have a feeling you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. Did you even watch those GSL matches?? -.- I swear a little part inside of me dies anytime some one mentions the concept of a "protoss deathball." These problems were not solved by not letting protoss macro. It was solved by a combination of infestor buff and infestor awareness, you could say. I appreciate you are trying to further the discussion but you really missed every mark on that one :/
|
On August 24 2011 02:36 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:33 DertoQq wrote:On August 24 2011 02:27 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 02:23 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 02:19 somadbro wrote:
I think it was obvious that I meant the top 3 in terms of finish....
No, it's not obvious.
and give me proof of a player who has said "i spam inefficiently when its the most important part of a game"
First you use average APM, now you talk about APM when it matters. White-Ra has good APM when it matters, but according to you isn't a top player because his average APM is under 150.
I never at any point said high APM = skill. I never at any point said that players who have APM = good. I never at any point said that if you have a high APM you will be good.
You seem to think you require high average apm to be good though, which is complete nonsense. High apm when it matters, yes, overall, no. At least half of the APM from players like MMA, MC and Losira is spam, not important clicks. i never said average apm was an indicator of skill. i never said that you need high APM to be good. I said that players who are top level players, generally speaking, have high apm and don't spam inefficiently. inefficient is the keyword in that sentence. it means that they spam, but it does not interfere with their ability to play the game. players who spam inefficiently are actually hampering themselves. do you start to see my point? If you do actions that you don't need or doesn't help you doing anything, then you're spamming. Pretty much every pro-players are spamming and you absolutely can't say "Oh, Puma played better than MC cuz he had a better APM" because the difference of APM between both of them is most likely useless actions. (i'm not even sure you're the one who said something like that but still, i just wanted to say it) I said nothing even remotely close to anything resembling an argument in opposition to what you just argued. In fact I already made the point that the players are spamming. My point is entirely related to the idea of efficiency. nothing anyone has said has brought that into consideration, and thus every attempt at a counter-argument has actually been completely invalid.
Well, someone said "Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game." and you replied to him "what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base?"
Which basically means that APM and "hard build" are both related. Which is completely false. A player like puma could do a multi harrass drop build with 280apm and the next game do a bunker rush with 450apm, depending on how much he feels like spamming.
|
On August 24 2011 02:43 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:42 Nightsz wrote:
has it ever occured to any protoss that the build is insanely gas intensive. So why don't you guys just steal a geyser, and you'll practically ruin the entire timing of the build Yeah, no one ever thought of anything so simple! It doesn't affect the timing. It slows down cloakshee tech but that's about it. It's a good idea if you have particular trouble with the cloakshee variant of it, but other than that it's pretty meaningless.
yaotzin is right in that there are also multiple variations of the 1-1-1 that aren't actually dependent on the 2nd gas, although the gas steal is a good idea that does limit the viability of some builds. there are still less variations when stealing the gas, but it's not stopping the 1-1-1 so it's probably not worth it. unless he get's cloak, you don't need a forge and you can, at a later point, drop 150 minerals instead of an earlier more valuable 75.
|
On August 24 2011 02:42 Nightsz wrote:
has it ever occured to any protoss that the build is insanely gas intensive. So why don't you guys just steal a geyser, and you'll practically ruin the entire timing of the build
Because if you steal a geyser and your opponent is actually going 1rax expo/2rax/3rax etc you lose 75 minerals which is huge early game? That's nearly a Zealot which means any 2rax Marauder timing will be really hard to hold off.
EDIT: Also, I believe that a standard Tank/Marine push, like in the GSL with Virus vs Genius but without the Starport, does not require 2gas.
|
Its both you idiots... Defense is english and defence is british english. Lay the shit down.
|
On August 24 2011 02:44 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:43 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 02:42 Nightsz wrote:
has it ever occured to any protoss that the build is insanely gas intensive. So why don't you guys just steal a geyser, and you'll practically ruin the entire timing of the build Yeah, no one ever thought of anything so simple! It doesn't affect the timing. It slows down cloakshee tech but that's about it. It's a good idea if you have particular trouble with the cloakshee variant of it, but other than that it's pretty meaningless. yaotzin is right in that there are also multiple variations of the 1-1-1 that aren't actually dependent on the 2nd gas, although the gas steal is a good idea that does limit the viability of some builds. it isn't stopping more builds than it's not stopping though.
I wouldn't say its worth it if you aren't really bothered by cloakshees, but if they just ruin your day then certainly gas steal him. You can't afford not to get a robo even with a gas steal though, or they can just...delay cloak then kill you, after scouting you have no detection with banshees :/
|
Artosis : Protoss should stop doing 1gate FE, cause its greedy and die to the 1-1-1 allin ... so .. is artosis wrong or is 1-1-1 just impossible to deal with "correctly" or is it basicly "(i hope my opponent screws up)"
|
On August 24 2011 02:42 Nightsz wrote:
has it ever occured to any protoss that the build is insanely gas intensive. So why don't you guys just steal a geyser, and you'll practically ruin the entire timing of the build
This isn't GSL season 1 where terran would take his 2nd gas at 15 right as the probe enters his base.... The 2nd gas is taken at 20 or 21, and the protoss has no way of getting this information as the probe must leave the base by 3:07, which is 17 or 18 food. The gas steal will restrict gas consumption a little bit, that is true. But the factory/starport timing is still exactly the same. You will just discourage raven first or cloak (but not prevent them). Tank production will remain exactly the same, as will marine production.
|
On August 24 2011 02:47 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:44 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 02:43 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 02:42 Nightsz wrote:
has it ever occured to any protoss that the build is insanely gas intensive. So why don't you guys just steal a geyser, and you'll practically ruin the entire timing of the build Yeah, no one ever thought of anything so simple! It doesn't affect the timing. It slows down cloakshee tech but that's about it. It's a good idea if you have particular trouble with the cloakshee variant of it, but other than that it's pretty meaningless. yaotzin is right in that there are also multiple variations of the 1-1-1 that aren't actually dependent on the 2nd gas, although the gas steal is a good idea that does limit the viability of some builds. it isn't stopping more builds than it's not stopping though. I wouldn't say its worth it if you aren't really bothered by cloakshees, but if they just ruin your day then certainly gas steal him. You can't afford not to get a robo even with a gas steal though, or they can just...delay cloak then kill you, after scouting you have no detection with banshees :/
exactly why it's a good idea but not really a good practice
i realise now that i forgot to mention that the cost wasn't worth the benefit. good in theory, not in execution.
you need a robo and an obs anyways. you don't necessarily need to gas steal to completely prevent cloak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
