|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
On August 22 2011 07:41 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:40 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:37 mcc wrote:On August 22 2011 07:25 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:23 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:22 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:18 JackDanger wrote:On August 22 2011 07:14 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:10 JackDanger wrote:On August 22 2011 07:07 Razuik wrote:
[quote]
I'm quite certain that 3-gate robo wrecks the 1-1-1 allin unless you engage in a TERRIBLE position or let him bunker up (which there is no reason you should let him). What exactly makes you so certain of this. Just from experience. Of course, nothing is so certain without a high level example. Since I haven't really seen any 2-gate robo builds at the highest level, we can just go back and fourth with no evidence. Which would be pointless. I would pose as evidence that this build has existed in some form since beta (though only in the forefront the last few months I suppose) and no viable counter, even blindly, has been successful. I would also say that 2-gate robo is/was a fairly standard build, and since it sounds good in theory, probably would have been one of the first responses attempted. There were many more robo openings in high level play about 5-6 months ago. The metagame then shifted to more FE openings for protoss. Terran have now realized this and are doing more 1-1-1 allins. Shouldn't the next shift in the metagame be robo openings? Robo openings often lose to 1-1-1 anyway. I dunno man, how many have we seen recently at the highest level? I can't even think of one. It's just the metagame. We do not see them most likely because they were thrown out in practice by the Koreans already. Do you think they would not try such a simple thing ? We have no way of knowing that. All we know is 5-6 months ago when robo builds were popular, there were wayyy less 1-1-1 allins. That says something. 5-6 months ago protoss had KA, faster warp gates, extra pylon radius.
2 of those changes are completely irrelevant and one has very little impact in the long run of defending this allin.
|
Would like a 10 gate stalker rush work? Depends on the bunker timing I guess
You just 10 gate stalker rush every PvT ? And hope they don't 2 rax? Or do anything but 1-1-1? GL with that.
|
On August 22 2011 07:37 StarStruck wrote:
The guy made a good practice partner in BW not much else. He didn't amount to much when under the spotlight and MC was still trying to climb the ranks in MBC. ;/
He did an all-kill against ACE if i remember correctly.
On practice he was a beast, he was a preferred practice partner of flash and i cannot empathize enough the preferred part.
There were(are) only a handful of those.
His nerves were his down fall, but as of lately he seems to have managed to solve that issue.
|
What I'm curious about is that 1-1-1 has been around since almost a year ago from what I remember. Many people, including the Koreans, were complaining about it for a while, but then it went out of fashion for a few months, only to become popular again since a couple of months ago. Kind of a strange development, IMO.
|
On August 22 2011 07:42 chaopow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:33 VPGeneralHans wrote:On August 22 2011 07:31 city42 wrote:On August 22 2011 07:29 VPGeneralHans wrote:On August 22 2011 07:26 city42 wrote:On August 22 2011 07:24 VPGeneralHans wrote:
1 gate FE into chargelot archon = 90% win rate
their banshees should have a lot of energy so you can feedback and morph archons and chargelot archon would beat marine tank, as long as you dont allow tons of bunkers to get up
it also allows for good counter after their 1/1/1 fails, no way the will have ghosts. you can expand again, get storm and drop robo etc but once the 1/1/1 fails it should be over That deals with cloak...how exactly? they cant afford cloak, if they got cloak thered be no tanks, like its been said, there are variations. but if they get cloak, 1 gate robo should be a decent enough counter, adding on extra gates etc I take it you didn't watch MC vs. Puma game 1 then. no I did not, I'd have to watch that to comment on a 1/1/1 youre discussing. If he has cloak and siege tanks he must have delayed it to be a stronger push etc I am pretty sure most of us here have watched the MC v Puma game from today's IEM tournament and that is probably why threads like this have exploded so much. The build does have tons of variatons, but you can get cloak and siege tanks out, and the timing is typically around 10 minutes(the timing which puma hit), which could be considered as a delayed but stronger push, as I've seen some pushes hit as early as 9 minutes. The cloak push is designed to force a protoss into getting a robo or doing significant probe damage if the protoss is going for a 6gate or tempelar tech. I know for sure that a chargelot archon will hold off a 1/1/1 but the problem is surviving long enough to get there. If you see his cloak banshee killing probes off and you don't have a robo out and done, you could lose the game right then and there. Also, if you go tempelar tech with robo for obs, your tempelar could be either smaller in number or slightly delayed.
you only have enough for really 2 archons, POSSIBLY more
|
On August 22 2011 07:42 Recoil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:41 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:40 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:37 mcc wrote:On August 22 2011 07:25 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:23 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:22 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:18 JackDanger wrote:On August 22 2011 07:14 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:10 JackDanger wrote:
[quote]
What exactly makes you so certain of this.
Just from experience. Of course, nothing is so certain without a high level example. Since I haven't really seen any 2-gate robo builds at the highest level, we can just go back and fourth with no evidence. Which would be pointless. I would pose as evidence that this build has existed in some form since beta (though only in the forefront the last few months I suppose) and no viable counter, even blindly, has been successful. I would also say that 2-gate robo is/was a fairly standard build, and since it sounds good in theory, probably would have been one of the first responses attempted. There were many more robo openings in high level play about 5-6 months ago. The metagame then shifted to more FE openings for protoss. Terran have now realized this and are doing more 1-1-1 allins. Shouldn't the next shift in the metagame be robo openings? Robo openings often lose to 1-1-1 anyway. I dunno man, how many have we seen recently at the highest level? I can't even think of one. It's just the metagame. We do not see them most likely because they were thrown out in practice by the Koreans already. Do you think they would not try such a simple thing ? We have no way of knowing that. All we know is 5-6 months ago when robo builds were popular, there were wayyy less 1-1-1 allins. That says something. 5-6 months ago protoss had KA, faster warp gates, extra pylon radius. Its nice that u remember all these facts but can u point to any of these factors being for sure the reason 111 is stronger now?
Yes.
KA. Faster warp gates. Extra pylon radius.
KA meant you could warp in storms in time for the later variations. Warp gates were always better. Pylon radius threated terran to not 1-1-1.
|
illsick
United States1770 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:34 gwaihir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:26 illsick wrote:On August 22 2011 07:23 LicH. wrote:On August 22 2011 07:19 paradox_ wrote:
When some of the best korean terrans in the world are saying its a little broken, why are people arguing so blindly. These are people who practice this stuff day in and out. This isn't some gold-low master level theorycrafting. The game has been out a lot longer than when 4gate was considered OP (which was nerfed anyways). There is a general consensus among those that practice 10-12 hours a day that 1-1-1 isn't right.
MC is considered to be one of the best toss (even if you disagree he comes in anyone's top 3-5 list) while someone like Puma wouldn't be considered the same league (from results). No doubt Puma is good and has potential but if some toss in Code B started destroyed MVP or NesTea 3-0 the way Puma did to MC today, there would be the same kind of crying going on if not worse.
There has been builds that were anti toss throughout the last 1 year but I don't think any of them made toss feel this helpless. Even during roach/ling allins, a lot of toss would say its holdable even though its very difficult. The solutions were there even at the peak of strength of roach/ling all-ins. The same has held true for all other builds. 4gate vs zerg etc. These builds also have the weakness of being screwed if it gets held off. No other build in the game for any race allows you to pull that many scvs and still be able to make a second or third push that strong. And even if it doesn't break the toss, if it denies the expo (by killing or cancelling whatever) long enough the terran can maintain the pushes indefinitely by simply flying their CC to expo. The only way the toss can put a stop to the build is to beat it super convincingly. Holding it off isn't enough. And as the OP linked, lack of information is an issue. If toss' had the option of throwing away 100-200 minerals to be able to scout the all-in coming at a reasonable time, they would. (e.g scan, saccing OL)
In my mind Puma is better than MC simply because of his BW background. Speaking of BW, when Bisu PvZ came out, did blizzard give zerg a buff because Bisu and ensuing protosses used a new "imbalanced" (yes I remember DT/Sair balance whine) strategy that was dominant for a period of time? Fuck no. what BW background? he never played a televised match. hahahaha nice troll....you know that puma was FLASHS FUCKING PRACTICE PARTNER.......trolls everywhere
First of all, source? second of all, even if it is true, maybe Nestea has practiced with someone from IM who has never been in GSL. Still doesn't impress me that he's practiced with him....
|
It's just as low risk high reward as many other protoss all ins. I have died to 4 gates and 6 gates that didn't "kill" me because the opponent microed well and killed many repairing SCVs. In Puzzle vs Scfou (IIRC) on crossfire we saw a 3 gate void build turn into contain and expand. Hell, even DT drops which may not be all in can do considerably low damage and still come out decently.
I think it's like tyler said way back, you don't need to necessarily go so economically greedy early on. 1 gate phoenix openings can hardcounter this pretty bad. As T, if you dont get early banshee harass kills you could be in trouble. and you CAN scout for cloak with your initial phoenix.
The issue still is that it becomes hard for Protoss if Terran decides to hint towards this build and do another. But i don't see a problem with that at all. This situation exists in many ways in all the matchups.
|
On August 22 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:
Is it just me or do foreigners very rarely use and succeed with this strat? Only one I can think of is Thorzain.
Its weird to have such an "overpowered" build abused just by Koreans. Are the foreigners simply not good enough at executing it?
Well Koreans are known for their aggressive 1 base play while foreigners tend to like macro games. Huk, Idra, Jinro ...
It's really the timing which Koreans are soo good at. I'm not saying foreigners are bad but they prefer passive aggressive style. Harassing the opponent but not committing to it which they expand as a follow up but after that phase it's pretty much a macro game. While Koreans prefer that constant poke and position aggressively.
|
On August 22 2011 07:44 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:42 Recoil wrote:On August 22 2011 07:41 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:40 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:37 mcc wrote:On August 22 2011 07:25 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:23 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:22 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:18 JackDanger wrote:On August 22 2011 07:14 Razuik wrote:
[quote]
Just from experience. Of course, nothing is so certain without a high level example. Since I haven't really seen any 2-gate robo builds at the highest level, we can just go back and fourth with no evidence. Which would be pointless. I would pose as evidence that this build has existed in some form since beta (though only in the forefront the last few months I suppose) and no viable counter, even blindly, has been successful. I would also say that 2-gate robo is/was a fairly standard build, and since it sounds good in theory, probably would have been one of the first responses attempted. There were many more robo openings in high level play about 5-6 months ago. The metagame then shifted to more FE openings for protoss. Terran have now realized this and are doing more 1-1-1 allins. Shouldn't the next shift in the metagame be robo openings? Robo openings often lose to 1-1-1 anyway. I dunno man, how many have we seen recently at the highest level? I can't even think of one. It's just the metagame. We do not see them most likely because they were thrown out in practice by the Koreans already. Do you think they would not try such a simple thing ? We have no way of knowing that. All we know is 5-6 months ago when robo builds were popular, there were wayyy less 1-1-1 allins. That says something. 5-6 months ago protoss had KA, faster warp gates, extra pylon radius. Its nice that u remember all these facts but can u point to any of these factors being for sure the reason 111 is stronger now? Yes. KA. Faster warp gates. Extra pylon radius. KA meant you could warp in storms in time for the later variations. Warp gates were always better. Pylon radius threated terran to not 1-1-1.
Okay the pylon radius argument is completely untrue. I don't think there was a variation late enough to where you had time to get storm and KA and found some use for the KA.
|
On August 22 2011 07:06 hugman wrote:
Even if Tyler isn't among the top pros he's still better than anyone else in this thread so why even begin to question his knowledge? If he can't debate then no one else can
Tyler is a great player, no doubt, but I still hold the opinions of IMMvp, Alicia, Killer and the other Code S/A players who have said this build needs patching over his.
|
On August 22 2011 07:44 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:42 Recoil wrote:On August 22 2011 07:41 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:40 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:37 mcc wrote:On August 22 2011 07:25 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:23 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:22 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:18 JackDanger wrote:On August 22 2011 07:14 Razuik wrote:
[quote]
Just from experience. Of course, nothing is so certain without a high level example. Since I haven't really seen any 2-gate robo builds at the highest level, we can just go back and fourth with no evidence. Which would be pointless. I would pose as evidence that this build has existed in some form since beta (though only in the forefront the last few months I suppose) and no viable counter, even blindly, has been successful. I would also say that 2-gate robo is/was a fairly standard build, and since it sounds good in theory, probably would have been one of the first responses attempted. There were many more robo openings in high level play about 5-6 months ago. The metagame then shifted to more FE openings for protoss. Terran have now realized this and are doing more 1-1-1 allins. Shouldn't the next shift in the metagame be robo openings? Robo openings often lose to 1-1-1 anyway. I dunno man, how many have we seen recently at the highest level? I can't even think of one. It's just the metagame. We do not see them most likely because they were thrown out in practice by the Koreans already. Do you think they would not try such a simple thing ? We have no way of knowing that. All we know is 5-6 months ago when robo builds were popular, there were wayyy less 1-1-1 allins. That says something. 5-6 months ago protoss had KA, faster warp gates, extra pylon radius. Its nice that u remember all these facts but can u point to any of these factors being for sure the reason 111 is stronger now? Yes. KA. Faster warp gates. Extra pylon radius. KA meant you could warp in storms in time for the later variations. Warp gates were always better. Pylon radius threated terran to not 1-1-1.
You could never research KA and storm in time for the attacks, Nobody has ever been that intimidated by extra pylon radius. Warpgates barely have any affect but definately have some
|
On August 22 2011 07:45 lizzuma wrote:
It's just as low risk high reward as many other protoss all ins. I have died to 4 gates and 6 gates that didn't "kill" me because the opponent microed well and killed many repairing SCVs. In Puzzle vs Scfou (IIRC) on crossfire we saw a 3 gate void build turn into contain and expand. Hell, even DT drops which may not be all in can do considerably low damage and still come out decently.
I think it's like tyler said way back, you don't need to necessarily go so economically greedy early on. 1 gate phoenix openings can hardcounter this pretty bad. As T, if you dont get early banshee harass kills you could be in trouble. and you CAN scout for cloak with your initial phoenix.
The issue still is that it becomes hard for Protoss if Terran decides to hint towards this build and do another. But i don't see a problem with that at all. This situation exists in many ways in all the matchups.
You're not a high level pro. We're discussing high level pro play, and Tyler's arguments has merit, but so does all the Koreans' points.
|
On August 22 2011 07:23 LicH. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:19 paradox_ wrote:
When some of the best korean terrans in the world are saying its a little broken, why are people arguing so blindly. These are people who practice this stuff day in and out. This isn't some gold-low master level theorycrafting. The game has been out a lot longer than when 4gate was considered OP (which was nerfed anyways). There is a general consensus among those that practice 10-12 hours a day that 1-1-1 isn't right.
MC is considered to be one of the best toss (even if you disagree he comes in anyone's top 3-5 list) while someone like Puma wouldn't be considered the same league (from results). No doubt Puma is good and has potential but if some toss in Code B started destroyed MVP or NesTea 3-0 the way Puma did to MC today, there would be the same kind of crying going on if not worse.
There has been builds that were anti toss throughout the last 1 year but I don't think any of them made toss feel this helpless. Even during roach/ling allins, a lot of toss would say its holdable even though its very difficult. The solutions were there even at the peak of strength of roach/ling all-ins. The same has held true for all other builds. 4gate vs zerg etc. These builds also have the weakness of being screwed if it gets held off. No other build in the game for any race allows you to pull that many scvs and still be able to make a second or third push that strong. And even if it doesn't break the toss, if it denies the expo (by killing or cancelling whatever) long enough the terran can maintain the pushes indefinitely by simply flying their CC to expo. The only way the toss can put a stop to the build is to beat it super convincingly. Holding it off isn't enough. And as the OP linked, lack of information is an issue. If toss' had the option of throwing away 100-200 minerals to be able to scout the all-in coming at a reasonable time, they would. (e.g scan, saccing OL)
In my mind Puma is better than MC simply because of his BW background. Speaking of BW, when Bisu PvZ came out, did blizzard give zerg a buff because Bisu and ensuing protosses used a new "imbalanced" (yes I remember DT/Sair balance whine) strategy that was dominant for a period of time? Fuck no.
This isn't BW, by that logic -> Boxer was the emperor. How come people don't consider him better than any of the other Code S players. It has no bearing, this is a new game. And afaik Puma was just a practice partner to a lot of people in BW, didn't really win anything significant.
MC on the other hand has won GSLs, foreign tournaments and not to mention actually contributed strategies and builds which had an impact on the metagame. I like Puma and think he is very good but it is very difficult for any terran or toss to think he's better than MC by any objective measure.
Puma in my mind showed more skill and talent in NASL finals rather than the 3-0 today. I don't blame Puma for using 111 or any terran for that matter. Play to win but the way it is now 111 is low risk, high reward. Even at the peak strength of other all-ins for all other races I don't think they even approached the success rate of 111 right now. Shit even if hypothetically we agree Puma is better than MC. What about MVP? He's saying 111 is broken. What now?
|
On August 22 2011 07:45 lizzuma wrote:
It's just as low risk high reward as many other protoss all ins. I have died to 4 gates and 6 gates that didn't "kill" me because the opponent microed well and killed many repairing SCVs. In Puzzle vs Scfou (IIRC) on crossfire we saw a 3 gate void build turn into contain and expand. Hell, even DT drops which may not be all in can do considerably low damage and still come out decently.
I think it's like tyler said way back, you don't need to necessarily go so economically greedy early on. 1 gate phoenix openings can hardcounter this pretty bad. As T, if you dont get early banshee harass kills you could be in trouble. and you CAN scout for cloak with your initial phoenix.
The issue still is that it becomes hard for Protoss if Terran decides to hint towards this build and do another. But i don't see a problem with that at all. This situation exists in many ways in all the matchups.
Not true. Best Zergs and Best Terrans laugh at 4 gates. Best protoss lose habitually to 1/1/1.
Stop talking about yourself, balance doesn't matter to us. MC or PuMa could beat us with any race any unit comp he wanted.
|
On August 22 2011 07:45 illsick wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:34 gwaihir wrote:On August 22 2011 07:26 illsick wrote:On August 22 2011 07:23 LicH. wrote:On August 22 2011 07:19 paradox_ wrote:
When some of the best korean terrans in the world are saying its a little broken, why are people arguing so blindly. These are people who practice this stuff day in and out. This isn't some gold-low master level theorycrafting. The game has been out a lot longer than when 4gate was considered OP (which was nerfed anyways). There is a general consensus among those that practice 10-12 hours a day that 1-1-1 isn't right.
MC is considered to be one of the best toss (even if you disagree he comes in anyone's top 3-5 list) while someone like Puma wouldn't be considered the same league (from results). No doubt Puma is good and has potential but if some toss in Code B started destroyed MVP or NesTea 3-0 the way Puma did to MC today, there would be the same kind of crying going on if not worse.
There has been builds that were anti toss throughout the last 1 year but I don't think any of them made toss feel this helpless. Even during roach/ling allins, a lot of toss would say its holdable even though its very difficult. The solutions were there even at the peak of strength of roach/ling all-ins. The same has held true for all other builds. 4gate vs zerg etc. These builds also have the weakness of being screwed if it gets held off. No other build in the game for any race allows you to pull that many scvs and still be able to make a second or third push that strong. And even if it doesn't break the toss, if it denies the expo (by killing or cancelling whatever) long enough the terran can maintain the pushes indefinitely by simply flying their CC to expo. The only way the toss can put a stop to the build is to beat it super convincingly. Holding it off isn't enough. And as the OP linked, lack of information is an issue. If toss' had the option of throwing away 100-200 minerals to be able to scout the all-in coming at a reasonable time, they would. (e.g scan, saccing OL)
In my mind Puma is better than MC simply because of his BW background. Speaking of BW, when Bisu PvZ came out, did blizzard give zerg a buff because Bisu and ensuing protosses used a new "imbalanced" (yes I remember DT/Sair balance whine) strategy that was dominant for a period of time? Fuck no. what BW background? he never played a televised match. hahahaha nice troll....you know that puma was FLASHS FUCKING PRACTICE PARTNER.......trolls everywhere First of all, source? second of all, even if it is true, maybe Nestea has practiced with someone from IM who has never been in GSL. Still doesn't impress me that he's practiced with him....
Artosis is the source. And by your wording you make it sound like you think he only practiced with him a few times. Well no.. he was the most sought out practice partner in Korea and a practice PARTNER of Flash.
He was good
|
On August 22 2011 07:47 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:06 hugman wrote:
Even if Tyler isn't among the top pros he's still better than anyone else in this thread so why even begin to question his knowledge? If he can't debate then no one else can Tyler is a great player, no doubt, but I still hold the opinions of IMMvp, Alicia, Killer and the other Code S/A players who have said this build needs patching over his.
Okay, just to lay to rest the IMMvp response to the allin. He is the terran that does it probably the least in Korea, so how does that give him the authority to comment on its balance? Little experience with the build usually results in rash conclusions about it.
|
On August 22 2011 07:47 Recoil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:44 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:42 Recoil wrote:On August 22 2011 07:41 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:40 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:37 mcc wrote:On August 22 2011 07:25 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:23 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:22 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:18 JackDanger wrote:
[quote]
I would pose as evidence that this build has existed in some form since beta (though only in the forefront the last few months I suppose) and no viable counter, even blindly, has been successful. I would also say that 2-gate robo is/was a fairly standard build, and since it sounds good in theory, probably would have been one of the first responses attempted. There were many more robo openings in high level play about 5-6 months ago. The metagame then shifted to more FE openings for protoss. Terran have now realized this and are doing more 1-1-1 allins. Shouldn't the next shift in the metagame be robo openings? Robo openings often lose to 1-1-1 anyway. I dunno man, how many have we seen recently at the highest level? I can't even think of one. It's just the metagame. We do not see them most likely because they were thrown out in practice by the Koreans already. Do you think they would not try such a simple thing ? We have no way of knowing that. All we know is 5-6 months ago when robo builds were popular, there were wayyy less 1-1-1 allins. That says something. 5-6 months ago protoss had KA, faster warp gates, extra pylon radius. Its nice that u remember all these facts but can u point to any of these factors being for sure the reason 111 is stronger now? Yes. KA. Faster warp gates. Extra pylon radius. KA meant you could warp in storms in time for the later variations. Warp gates were always better. Pylon radius threated terran to not 1-1-1. You could never research KA and storm in time for the attacks, Nobody has ever been that intimidated by extra pylon radius. Warpgates barely have any affect but definately have some
Well your right about the KA but the lead into it discouraged 1-1-1 since if your 1-1-1 failed you'd be uber fucked as that tech path was imba. The pylon radius made early aggression a lot scarier because your marines wouldnt be able to shoot the pylon down effectively, this made a heavy tech starter like 1-1-1 was harder to pull off. The warp gates are explainatory.
|
On August 22 2011 07:40 Razuik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 07:37 mcc wrote:On August 22 2011 07:25 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:23 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 07:22 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:18 JackDanger wrote:On August 22 2011 07:14 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:10 JackDanger wrote:On August 22 2011 07:07 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 07:04 blooblooblahblah wrote:
[quote]
This would be true if there was a reactive 1base build tht could actually hold it off.
I'm quite certain that 3-gate robo wrecks the 1-1-1 allin unless you engage in a TERRIBLE position or let him bunker up (which there is no reason you should let him). What exactly makes you so certain of this. Just from experience. Of course, nothing is so certain without a high level example. Since I haven't really seen any 2-gate robo builds at the highest level, we can just go back and fourth with no evidence. Which would be pointless. I would pose as evidence that this build has existed in some form since beta (though only in the forefront the last few months I suppose) and no viable counter, even blindly, has been successful. I would also say that 2-gate robo is/was a fairly standard build, and since it sounds good in theory, probably would have been one of the first responses attempted. There were many more robo openings in high level play about 5-6 months ago. The metagame then shifted to more FE openings for protoss. Terran have now realized this and are doing more 1-1-1 allins. Shouldn't the next shift in the metagame be robo openings? Robo openings often lose to 1-1-1 anyway. I dunno man, how many have we seen recently at the highest level? I can't even think of one. It's just the metagame. We do not see them most likely because they were thrown out in practice by the Koreans already. Do you think they would not try such a simple thing ? We have no way of knowing that. All we know is 5-6 months ago when robo builds were popular, there were wayyy less 1-1-1 allins. That says something.
No it actually does not say anything else than that they were not used. It was also a time when wg reasearch was shorter.
Also since you responded before my edit, i will repeat.
Why did you ignore this piece of information:
On August 22 2011 06:23 CryingPoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:18 Razuik wrote:On August 22 2011 06:03 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Something like this was a possibility ever since so many protoss players began to rely on 15nexus and 1gate expand. I've never understood the economic necessity of expanding so soon. 1gate robo and 1gate star (for phoenix) builds can yield economically sound mid games without sacrificing early game information. I don't think there is such an economic necessity. I think protoss players saw that they could get away with really early expansions and so they did it. Now it's back to being a coinflip like it ought to be. Rushing to gather information remains the most reliable way to get to mid game on even ground or to win outright against opponents not intending to enter mid game. Of course, this requires perfect use of the information, so it is a more difficult way to play until all the necessary knowledge has been discovered, at which point it makes all the things it counters absolutely obsolete. I imagine 1-1-1 is one such thing. I completely agree with this. There is no need to take such a huge economic risk as protoss. Artosis constantly explains how great safe builds like 2gate-robo are. I have not seen a 2gate-robo in GSL for a very long time. The metagame in TvP is FE protoss atm.. Terran is simply abusing that fact. In my opinion, Protoss players just need to develop more safe builds in the matchup. I will be suggesting GomTV to have an Artosis on Star2 Ready Action Program. Korean SC2 caster who claimed that 1/1/1 is dependable against Protoss with the exact build that Artosis claimed got BEATEN 5 times in a row by ST_SuperStar (also known as Random King)
|
On August 22 2011 05:57 vOdToasT wrote:
So it's basically a coinflip. Prepare for 1 / 1 / 1, or prepare for other builds. Guess wrong and you lose.
I'm starting to get used to this.
It is a twisted coinflip. If you guess wrong you lose, if you guess right you are either even or in a hard situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
