This discussion started by an argument. In this case, I was defending the honor of Tasteless and SuperDaniel, as some members of Teamliquid community refer to them as "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" in their GomTV commentaries. I don't want a flame war here so I am not naming name.
Basically the argument goes like this "Tasteless over usage of the term "bulldog" is just as bad as SC2GG commentator's over usage of "bisu build" on every cannon fast expo pvz."
Here is what I said, which led to the discussion of what is a Build, and how to define an strategy. + Show Spoiler +
On April 22 2009 06:49 rei wrote: The objective of Bisu build is designed to expand and have the ability to do harrassement and easy scouting, As bisu first demonstrated it in his games vs savior.
SCGG commentators use "bisu build" on every protoss fast expo with cannon.
Objective of cannon fast expo does not always have to be harrassment (ex: instead set up a strong +1 speedlot rush, or fast goon reaver combo attack)
On the other hand, the objective of Bulldog is to break a fast expanding terran's defense.
It does not matter what building order, 2 or 3 gateway opening (originally i think bulldog is done with 3gates), does not matter if it is prox robo reaver or no reaver, the objective is the same, break that fucking terran defense, either with shuttle on top of the ramp and goons below, or elevator all goons inside terran main before picking up the reaver. Again the Objective is the same!
all Bisu builds have the same objective, all bulldog build have the same objective, if the objective of the build in question is different from the name associated with, then the commentator made an mistake. Tasteless did not make the mistake as he has focus on the objective of what a protoss can do with the fast shuttle by calling it bulldog.
The bulldog build (quoted by the TLuser as evidence for testeless and Daniel being "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy")
^Bulldog (or 4zeal shuttle, 3 gate goon) being used correctly. (the actual attack starts at 8:05)
It doesn't necessarily have to be breaking the nat. In that vod, Guemchi is breaking Up's wallin (to his main), which is what it's normally used for. After dropping the 4 zealots into his main or nat, you can carry in dragoons to further pressure the opponent.
The build is somewhat "all-in" like, so with bad micro you will probably lose all your units and lose the game. But with good micro, you'll just break the opponent (if he didn't scout the rush coming).
He goes on to explain that "This is the purest, most precise description of a bulldog, but at most the term can be generalized to refer to an early-mid-game attack which is designed to break a Terran base with a combination of dragoons and zealot bombs (no reaver)."
At this point of our discussion it is clear that there are many people defines starcraft strategies as what they see on replays and 1 vod. As more and more TLers agree with testeless and Daniel being "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" I feel the need to save them from misinformation.
as new players are feed by their mentors with "builds" i couldn't help but pounder what tasteless said about Baby before game1 of baby vs jangbi series.( basically tasteless made a point about baby might be a monster at macroing but can't adapt and vary strategically base on different situations due to his young age), Like the person I was discussing with, many people are pointing to a building order to define a build. I want to talk about the definition of a Strategy(or aka build). My argument is that a build is not absolute, by absolute i mean a build does not have to follow a strict number of units or building at a certain timing, based on the progress of every single game a build have different adaptation for more than one scenarios. let me point out that the "bulldog build" quoted by this TLuser is only 1 variation of the entire build that only fits one scenario( that particular replay or vod the build order derived from). Tasteless even mentioned in Game 1 of Major vs Reach that protoss does various versions of the shuttle play in early to mid game in attempts to break the terran defense, signifying that the Bulldog build is not absolute. And Like i mention inside the the spoiler tag above, it is the objective that defines an strategy, not the building order. The timing can be vary, the unit mix can be vary, but the objective is always the same.
And then compare to the Fantasy build when he played jeadong in osl final,
and then compare to the fantasy build when he played during proleague,
"Fantasy build" s not absolute. It has flexibility, innovation and variations which all depend on different maps, opponents, and scouting information. A build is not what you think it is (a fixed number of units and timing) , it is not an building order, an building order is only an small part of a build that allows the player to adapt to various scenarios.
Sure, a build has many variants. But a Bulldog is always a natural-crashing attack off of one base, with pure Dragoons and 4 Zealots in a Shuttle. That's the only definition.
I don't mind his "Bulldoggish" variant with a Reaver; although not the original definition it certain fits into the theme of a Bulldog. However any sort of Shuttle harassment is not a Bulldog - a Bulldog is a straight, crashing attack on the natural meant to break it.
On April 22 2009 09:30 Chill wrote: - a Bulldog is a straight, crashing attack on the natural meant to break it.
That's it, the objective of the Bulldog, it doesn't always have to have 4 zealots in it, 2 reavers or 1reaver +2lots will do too, tasteless only used bulldog in scenarios which protoss potentially could break the natural with shuttle play, whether the protoss decide to bulldog or just harrase depend on different scenarios, maybe he sees terran is well defended against the bulldog, in which toss decide not to commit the goons, or maybe he sees an opening in which he can do more by just reaver harrase. the protoss is adapting to different scenerios he sees.
On April 22 2009 09:30 Chill wrote: Sure, a build has many variants. But a Bulldog is always a natural-crashing attack off of one base, with pure Dragoons and 4 Zealots in a Shuttle. That's the only definition.
I don't mind his "Bulldoggish" variant with a Reaver; although not the original definition it certain fits into the theme of a Bulldog. However any sort of Shuttle harassment is not a Bulldog - a Bulldog is a straight, crashing attack on the natural meant to break it.
This is exactly what I was thinking while reading the OP.
Yeah, it is kinda annoying the flexible use of "Bisu build" (which is forge FE opening into sair/dt in the midgame as well as some further extension into the endgame) by commentators, which is why I explicitly try to avoid those two little words in my commentaries unless it is ACTUALLY a bisu build. Forge FE can mean +1 rush, sair/reav(/carrier), sair/reav/zeal, zeal/sair (Khan protosses lol), among other things.
The objective is what defines a strategy, not the building order, unit mix and timing.
you can clearly see the evidence in the "fantasy build", what is the objective of the "fantasy build" ? why valkyries? why is fantasy build different when fantasy plays Jeadong compare to vs. GGplay? What's different? maps? positioning? scouting information in that particular game? How did fantasy win, and Why did fantasy lost? how did jeadong prevent fantasy from completing the "fantasy build"'s objective?
Day[9] did a very informative post on the Fantasy build, check out his works.
On April 22 2009 09:30 Chill wrote: Sure, a build has many variants. But a Bulldog is always a natural-crashing attack off of one base, with pure Dragoons and 4 Zealots in a Shuttle. That's the only definition.
I don't mind his "Bulldoggish" variant with a Reaver; although not the original definition it certain fits into the theme of a Bulldog. However any sort of Shuttle harassment is not a Bulldog - a Bulldog is a straight, crashing attack on the natural meant to break it.
This is exactly what I was thinking while reading the OP.
Yeah, it is kinda annoying the flexible use of "Bisu build" (which is forge FE opening into sair/dt in the midgame as well as some further extension into the endgame) by commentators, which is why I explicitly try to avoid those two little words in my commentaries unless it is ACTUALLY a bisu build. Forge FE can mean +1 rush, sair/reav(/carrier), sair/reav/zeal, zeal/sair (Khan protosses lol), among other things.
rofl, in your last sentence you prove that you missed the point
Perhaps u are arguing for the difference between strategy and build orders? Build orders are designed based on the strategies they seek to carry out, like the bulldog attack, different build orders can exist to implement the same strategy.
Yeah, builds are just designed to go into the strategy. Which is the action itself.
Yeah Daniel lee and tasteless are definitely NOT REALLY LOW in strategy. They are very intelligent. They probably just don't want to spend time explaining it all the time.
On April 22 2009 10:09 w3jjjj wrote: Perhaps u are arguing for the difference between strategy and build orders? Build orders are designed based on the strategies they seek to carry out, like the bulldog attack, different build orders can exist to implement the same strategy.
correct, and I think tasteless with 99.99% certainty is talking about the Bulldog strategy, and not the "bulldog building order" when he uses the term "bulldog" during his commentary. Therefore calling tasteless "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" is a mistake, and new members of TL and the brood war community are being misinform.
Alright. I'll tell you about the evolution of the so-called bulldog build as I understand it, and so far as I know no one else has an understanding of its history anymore (or perhaps ever did).
If you want to see what I take to be the original bulldog rep see BullDoG[tC] vs. TNH)Marine that is available on the rep section of this site.
old post of mine: "Like ive typed before, i dont think bulldog = 3gate/4zeal shuttle. Dunno why people think it does. Judging by that rep, Bulldog is robo before first goon->1gate goon->3gate goon->double expo->mass shuttle. And the bulldog build is not good. Rek said it, and i agree with him." And it looks like the original bulldog never had as an objective a natural break with shuttle either.
Now, the person who did do 3gate goon/4zealot shuttle attack off of one base in order to break nat was rs.Pride. And I don't remember clearly, but pretty sure he did not refer to what he was doing as bulldog.
Ultimately, why did the title 'bulldog' build stick to pride's sort of build and not the actual player bulldogs own? I would say it is because bulldogs actual build was kind of bad and players realized that so it was not done. But Pride's build still has some potential as an alternative strategy. "Bulldog" is simply kind of catchy and I suppose people had some notion that it had to do with zealot shuttle, so it caught on to describe prides style of build.
Now it looks like the term 'bulldog' has become so amorphous that people just want to use it as 'crashing attack on the natural meant to break it'.
I don't care how you define "bulldog". Different people use terms in different ways. That fact is what is important to understand, as well as to recognize the history of the build.
The amount of mindless garbage talk / "comic material" (with lack of anything else to label it) on gomtv was stupid. Soooo much talk about the audience members, panda bear guy, random crap that wasn't about the game or even the meta game.
Artosis and Chill are good at explaining the details of whats happening in the game.
Alright. I'll tell you about the evolution of the so-called bulldog build as I understand it, and so far as I know no one else has an understanding of its history anymore (or perhaps ever did).
If you want to see the original bulldog rep see BullDoG[tC] vs. TNH)Marine that is available on the rep section of this site.
old post of mine: "Like ive typed before, i dont think bulldog = 3gate/4zeal shuttle. Dunno why people think it does. Judging by that rep, Bulldog is robo before first goon->1gate goon->3gate goon->double expo->mass shuttle. And the bulldog build is not good. Rek said it, and i agree with him." It looks like the original bulldog never had as an objective a natural break with shuttle.
Now, the person who did do 3gate goon/4zealot shuttle attack off of one base in order to break nat was rs.Pride. And I don't remember clearly, but pretty sure he did not refer to what he was doing as bulldog.
Ultimately, why did the title 'bulldog' build stick to pride's sort of build and not the actual player bulldogs own? I would say it is because bulldogs actual build was bad and people realized that, but prides build still has some potential as an alternative strategy. "Bulldog" is simply kind of catchy and people had some notion that it had to do with zealot shuttles so it caught on to describe prides style of build.
Now it looks like the term 'bulldog' has become so amorphous that people just want to use as 'crashing attack on the natural meant to break it'.
I don't care how you define it. Different people use terms in different ways. That fact is what is important to understand, as well as to recognize the history of the build and how the title 'bulldog' has morphed over time.
Everybody who understands starcraft knows that gomtv isn't high level commentary. It is for fun and basic education of poor players. Neither tasteless or DLee ever once have explained exact timings and their interelation it isn't there goal.
Day/artosis are the only high level commentators for starcraft in the english world.
Is being called 'low level' strategically an insult from which dlee and tasteless should be saved from? I personally don't watch gomtv and pray for pearls of starcraft knowledge to pour out of there mouths that might just save me from a loss on iccup.
It is a fact that they are 'low level' strategically. Why do you think that is bad? Tasteless is an entertainer not a teacher.
I can't help but think this shows that the relationship between strategy and build order is more fluid than either you or [your friend] realize. Any line you draw is going to be pretty artificial and really only defined on the context that it comes up in.
At this point "where bulldog actually comes from" is a moot point, since the generally accepted definition has a definition involving an attack and a shuttle from one base, but even that definition seems to be getting wider and wider with time.
On April 22 2009 12:16 AttackZerg wrote: Everybody who understands starcraft knows that gomtv isn't high level commentary. It is for fun and basic education of poor players. Neither tasteless or DLee ever once have explained exact timings and their interelation it isn't there goal.
Day/artosis are the only high level commentators for starcraft in the english world.
Is being called 'low level' strategically an insult from which dlee and tasteless should be saved from? I personally don't watch gomtv and pray for pearls of starcraft knowledge to pour out of there mouths that might just save me from a loss on iccup.
It is a fact that they are 'low level' strategically. Why do you think that is bad? Tasteless is an entertainer not a teacher.
My evidence for tasteless and DanielLee talking with high level in terms of strategy happens in many games, i am going to just randomly pick the game i'm watching right now, Modesty vs Anytime game 3.
What tasteless and superdaniel is seeing: Anytime going 1 gate in main fast expo behind base without cannon, and harrase the zerg with the first zealot.
Superdaniel said: 1 gateway plays can be over run by many zerglings especially when the zerg over commits with the defense of early zealot harrase by making too many zerglings.
Nick said: one thing we are seeing is that Anytime is hiding a probe inside zerg base as zerg busy with the zealot, by doing so the protoss can later scout with that probe to make sure nothing tricky is being done by zerg that will fool the protoss.
example 2 What tasteless and daniel see: 2 zerglings leak inside anytime's base, so zealots wasn't Hold position on ramp.
Tasteless said: this could be very bad for protoss as the zerg can rally more and more lings into protoss base with speed upgrade and the protoss has only 1 gate teched + expoed will not be able to survive the zergling onslaughts.
Here both tasteless and superdaniel demonstrated ability to talk about what is happening and relate them to what could happen next, which strategy would be strong in these particular situations. On the example of hidden probes during zealot harrase, tasteless also explained and answered what to do to prevent an zergling allin described by supperdaniel. That probe will see all lings and no drone, therefore anytime will be able to do something about it.
I'm pretty sure i'm doing something useless here defending something does not need to be defend, but in the eyes of the newer members of starcraft community they might have believe Tasteless and Daniellee is "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" Which will hinder their understanding of the game, therefore the reason for me posting these is so that noobs know tasteless and Daniel are deep strategically.
I have answered your questions about your whys, and now let me ask you why do you claim "Neither tasteless or DLee ever once have explained exact timings and their interelation it isn't there goal." In the same time you also claim "I personally don't watch gomtv and pray for pearls of starcraft knowledge to pour out of there mouths that might just save me from a loss on iccup."
1. you provides no evidence on your claim about "Neither tasteless or DLee ever once have explained exact timings and their interelation it isn't there goal."
2.I provided evidence explained how they explained timing and scouting
3. you provided evidence on you don't watch gomtv "I personally don't watch gomtv and pray for pearls of starcraft knowledge to pour out of there mouths that might just save me from a loss on iccup."
4. you are wrongly insulting both tasteless and DLee with no evidence to back it up. (1,2,3)
Build order =/= strategy. Imo, strategy can be viewed as what your plan in a particular game is in order to win, build order is the most effective way to execute that strategy. A build order may vary due to variables x and y that occur in the game, however if you name a build order z, then to refer to this z the timings must be similar, eg. 30 seconds difference (due to x y variables) between basic timings of that build order that achieve the same thing. Also, if you name a build order Z, then what this build order achieves must be constant, you cant name a build order something, having in mind one thing, yet doing a completely different thing that is kind of similar but not quite, and refer back to the same build order.
To put this into an example, taking the one of bulldog, lets say that your general strategy is, I want to break the Terran in some way, preferably at his natural at a given timing, with a certain number of goons, using a shuttle and zealots to draw tank fire away from them, and the build order you use for this is the ''bulldog one'', and assuming that to you, breaking a terran with goons+zealots+shuttle = bulldog, then thats what it is. A ''reaver bulldog'' is not a ''bulldog''as it is a completely different BO, because needing a reaver, you need different buildings than just zealot+goon+shuttle, but also you dont have the same strategy you started off with, which would be to kill the Terran with zealot+goon+shuttle off 1 base, at the Terrans natural. Yeah I think that made sense
I was watching a game off the gomtv site... I think Mind vs Last TvT game 1 and Mind rushed with a few vults (i think 4) and 2 marines and Mind was able to get in with 2-3 vulture and harass, but during this time tasteless/dan were talking about some random shit and I don't mind because I understand the game fully and only have the volume up to hear the sound of the game, not necessarily the casters, but I think anyone who's new to SC or maybe doesn't understand it as well would appreciate them to talk more of the strategic aspects of the game as opposed to some random factoid about a player who's not even in the game.
There's nothing wrong w/ factoids, they are pretty interesting most of the time, but they are best saved for moments where nothing is happening or during the opening countdown and first 60 seconds.
I think each duo needs a person who is somewhat comical and knows the game relatively well (tasteless) and someone who knows the game very well and is clear and concise and Dan doesn't do that very well IMO. I think Diggity would make a good counterpart with tasteless.
talking about stuffs off topic is not the same as "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy". Only evidences that justify "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy" is quotes of tasteless and daniel lee constantly talking about strategies that is totally wrong in the context of the game they are commenting on. So far I have not yet spotted any that quilifies as "REALLY LOW level in terms of strategy"
Language is a funny thing. In starcraft, new terms will constantly show up. And it's not like the terms have a single inventor and seldom do the users of the term all agree upon its meaning even from the start. People will have a differing understanding of the game itself and define it according to how they perceive the game. I'll even argue that calling a forge into FE with canons a "bisu build" is not completely incorrect if that is what the community decides to call it. If enough people use a term incorrectly in a small community, the incorrect meaning will become the one commonly used, understood and therefore correct.
We've had conflicting definitions in starcraft for a long time. I agree with the OP that it makes sense to define a "build" by its purpose. But you can't ignore the traits of the build that make it recognizable as what it is. You can't call a terran opening an FD build if the terran pushes out with 8 marines, 2 medics and a firebat even if the idea behind it is to pressure, expo and give the protoss doubts about whether or not it is an expo build or not. If you call that an FD biuld, people will laugh at you. But it doesn't necesarily mean you understand the game any less by using a wrong name for it though.
Btw, this has nothing to do with tasteless nor daniel. And people should be patient with them even when they dumb down the language and strategy. They are not trying to teach us to be progamers, they are trying to convey to people what is going on and without a lot of time to actually ponder about how to precisely pick out the right words and terms. At the time when a player is busting someone's natural, you don't want to go into detail about the finer points of bulldog. They need to report the damage, the implications of the action, the psychological mindsets of the players etc...
EPT
sorry.
