|
On October 19 2011 22:48 TheAntZ wrote:
Man buldermar im not gonna quote your mountain of worthless shit but its clear you're arguing just for the sake of arguing now. He played against GMs, and beat them. That is playing at a GM level. It doesnt fucking matter if it took place on ladder, in customs, or if he never fucking played a placement match. If he was playing against a GM that was making an effort to win, and he beat him, it means that he is playing the game AT THE LEVEL of a grandmaster
But you fucking know this already, you're arguing semantics because you cant stand being wrong
1) Which part of what I've written is worthless shit?
2) Stating that I'm arguing for the sake of arguing is an allegation. Furthermore, it's ironic to acuse someone of arguing just for the sake of arguing without providing any proof, as your post in effect becomes just that: arguing for the sake of arguing. Explain how I'm arguing for the sake of arguing or your post will remain an assertion without proof.
3) Playing at the GM level is in no way directly defined by the amount of GM players you beat or face - neither total amount, nor percentage. Stating "I've beat GM players with this build" is not the same as stating "I'm playing at the GM level".
4) No, I disagree with you. Please allow me to decide on my own position in this regard. If you're going to tell me what I think and don't think; what I can stand and can't stand; if I'm wrong or not, provide specific examples, logical counterarguments or other proof, or your posts will be nothing but allegations, leaving me with nothing to respond on.
|
On October 24 2011 02:57 buldermar wrote:
Could you specify why? Right here:
On October 19 2011 09:11 buldermar wrote:
I'm not debating anything, I'm answering questions like the one you just made. I initially asked OP one question and have only been responding to people quoting me.
If you think I'm looking to prove anything other than that OP is lying, you're mistaking. I checked the most recent 20 matches on the request of someone else.
I'm also not discussing OP's level of play. My personal opinion is that he's a very good player, but it's absolutely irrelevant for my points.
Please stop making absurd assumptions about my motivations, goals etc. I wanted to make one simple point: that OP was never in GM and therefore cannot be playing at the GM level, which, in effect, makes him a liar about this matter both rhetorically and logically. And right here:
On October 24 2011 03:10 buldermar wrote:
3) Playing at the GM level is in no way directly defined by the amount of GM players you beat or face - neither total amount, nor percentage. Stating "I've beat GM players with this build" is not the same as stating "I'm playing at the GM level".
Either discuss the build itself or leave. Stop arguing about Huargh's level of play. You took one tiny chunk of the OP and blew it so far out of proportion that all you are doing is damaging the thread for everybody else by whining about the OP saying he plays at the GM level. He probably didn't even think twice when writing that and now you are crucifying him for it. Stop arguing semantics and grow up. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but it is incredibly frustrating reading threads trying to learn something when there are people repeatedly dragging it off topic arguing about something irrelevant to the actual topic. So please, either start discussing the build itself, or leave this thread alone so people who actually want to learn something can instead of having to sift through garbage.
Now back on topic, after using this build as Protoss for a while (and having great success) I actually got to play against it as Zerg on my second account, it can be quite annoying to deal with. It seems that spreading units is the key to dealing with this, along with having the correct amount of anti-air and detection (3-4 overseers that are all split up). I would like to play against it more so I can get a better understanding of both sides. It definitely seems strong but beatable.
|
On October 20 2011 03:42 Bonham wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 02:06 buldermar wrote:
Furthermore, as I believe I explained, stating that one can play at the GM level without ever having been in GM league is <b>tautologically a self-contradiction, both rhetorically and logically.</b> Oh god, I'm revoking your English language license.
I don't think highly of my english abilities. I don't speak it in my daily life and havn't made an effort of learning the language.
The statement is a tautological self-contradiction. It either means nothing or is a lie, both rhetorically and logically. Since it was written, it has an intended meaning, therefore being a lie. This can be proven, for instance, by using propositional logic with binary connectives, or by considering each of the possible interpretations that does not entail ever having been in GM league AND, at the same time, has a distinctive meaning. Since both methods, per se, leads to the statement being a lie, and a lie being a tautological self-contradiction, it necessarily is tautologically a self-contradiction (both rhetorically and logically).
|
On October 24 2011 03:57 Ben... wrote:Right here: Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 09:11 buldermar wrote:
I'm not debating anything, I'm answering questions like the one you just made. I initially asked OP one question and have only been responding to people quoting me.
If you think I'm looking to prove anything other than that OP is lying, you're mistaking. I checked the most recent 20 matches on the request of someone else.
I'm also not discussing OP's level of play. My personal opinion is that he's a very good player, but it's absolutely irrelevant for my points.
Please stop making absurd assumptions about my motivations, goals etc. I wanted to make one simple point: that OP was never in GM and therefore cannot be playing at the GM level, which, in effect, makes him a liar about this matter both rhetorically and logically. And right here: Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 03:10 buldermar wrote:
3) Playing at the GM level is in no way directly defined by the amount of GM players you beat or face - neither total amount, nor percentage. Stating "I've beat GM players with this build" is not the same as stating "I'm playing at the GM level".
Either discuss the build itself or leave. Stop arguing about Huargh's level of play. You took one tiny chunk of the OP and blew it so far out of proportion that all you are doing is damaging the thread for everybody else by whining about the OP saying he plays at the GM level. He probably didn't even think twice when writing that and now you are crucifying him for it. Stop arguing semantics and grow up. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but it is incredibly frustrating reading threads trying to learn something when there are people repeatedly dragging it off topic arguing about something irrelevant to the actual topic. So please, either start discussing the build itself, or leave this thread alone so people who actually want to learn something can instead of having to sift through garbage. Now back on topic, after using this build as Protoss for a while (and having great success) I actually got to play against it as Zerg on my second account, it can be quite annoying to deal with. It seems that spreading units is the key to dealing with this, along with having the correct amount of anti-air and detection (3-4 overseers that are all split up). I would like to play against it more so I can get a better understanding of both sides. It definitely seems strong but beatable.
I asked OP a specific question.
After having asked OP a specific question, I was quoted.
This leads to a situation in which I can either;
a) respond
b) ignore
I sincerely believe I'm being openminded and willing to answer anything I'm asked. I initially asked OP a question for a clarification rather than making an accusation. The accusation occured once I had to defend my question for people whom I didn't ask in the first place.
I didn't take any chunk, nor did I blow anything out of proportions. If you read the entire thread, you'll find that I have not initiated a single dialogue despite my very first initial question. If I'm quoted, I'm in my right to respond to what's being said in my direction.
I have reasons to think that the statement is not a typo and I believe that the lie is destructive for a healthy and fair discussion environment. I'm putting my own credibility on the line by stating that OP has, to this point in time, never been in GM league or anything equivilent.
As I've stated countless times, I'm only responding to posts directed to me. I'm not initiating ANY conversations. It is ironic if you make a post just to ask of me not to respond to the very post you made when I'm not initiating anything in the first place.
Keep this in mind:
1) I reserve my right to respond to people quoting me or people posting something specifically to me
2) I've asked only one question, which was less than one line. From there, one of two things could happen; a) the comment could be left alone, as it was adressed specifically to OP b) someone could interfere, quoting me or posting something specifically to me, which would lead to 1).
Don't quote me or post something specifically to me unless you're okay with it being answered.
|
I urge people to please keep this thread on topic. It's getting frustrating to keep sifting through this shit every time I want to keep up with what people are saying about THE BUILD.
The only zerg I have played that has dealt with the build well is the zerg who did a huge 2 base roach hydra attack after I took my 3rd but before it started paying for itself. Every zerg I run into wants to run their entire army into the vortex and I don't know why. Zergs can tade units much better than protoss so it seems like they should just keep as many units out of the vortex as possible. They aren't doing much spreading out of units or even much counter attacking for that matter. I'm sure zergs will figure this out better soon but it's not evident in the games I have been playing against them as of now.
|
On October 24 2011 02:53 buldermar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 13:38 rycho wrote:On October 19 2011 09:11 buldermar wrote:On October 18 2011 18:38 Lordcamel wrote:
@buldermar
What's the point of debating this for 2 pages ? You prove nothing saying that the Op lost to the last gm he played... and you d be helpfull to a lot more people trying the build and critizing it rather than the Op's level Please stop making absurd assumptions about my motivations, goals etc. I wanted to make one simple point: that OP was never in GM and therefore cannot be playing at the GM level, which, in effect, makes him a liar about this matter both rhetorically and logically. this is a really dumb argument so i probably shouldn't add to it, but this is a really dumb thing to post. its very possible to be at a "gm level" as the op described it without actually being in gm currently. actually, its possible to be at "gm level" without even playing a ladder game, ever. i have a hard time believing you actually think the stuff you post is correct, and i think everyone can agree that its irrelevant. 1) It's not a matter of not currently being in GM, but a matter of never having been in GM or an equivilanet of GM. 2) It's not possible to be playing at the GM level without ever having been in GM league. If you disagree, read my arguments and be specific about where I'm wrong. It's a tautological fallacy to utilize a term with a clear boundary without meeting its respective defining criterium. Without having ever been in GM league (or an equivilant) one can, per definition, not be playing at the GM level. Master league is not an equivilant because master league is on the same continuum, serving as a distinction (border) for GM league. 3) Since I've been responding only to posts sent my way, my posts are, per definition, relevant, because their relevance is just a synonym for my intentions with them. The fact that you quoted my post AND described it as being irrelevant at once is a clear incongruity, that is, ironic.
i think i see where your problem comes from. your "defining criterium" for GM level play seems to be strictly that a player must be in the GM league. for the rest of the posters in this thread, it isn't defined in that way.
i think you're mistaking "GM-level" for "GM" - the GM in the first term describes the level of play, not the specific GM league. if i was to say:
i am a GM zerg player.
this would imply that i am in fact a zerg grandmaster on any of the various servers. but if i was to say:
my zvt is GM-level.
this would imply that i am as good as GM zerg players at the zvt matchup. using GM-level to describe a certain level of skill simply does not imply that that which is being described was actually in the GM league, period.
it would be nonsensical to use the term "GM-level" in the way that you seem to be advocating. take player x, who just won a ladder game and was promoted to GM for the first time. in the game he just played (immediately before his promotion) he was not and had never had been in GM league. however, he played and beat a grandmaster level player. i would describe his play in that game as "GM-level", but according to what you've posted that would be incorrect because player x had never actually attained GM league at that point. do you see the error in this?
|
Man, this thread would be so much easier to follow if I had the reading comprehension of a first-grader. Alas, I was educated in England and thus cannot legitimately claim to possess the reading comprehension of a first-grader - the conversations I undertake on a near daily basis at or around that level notwithstanding.
Insofar as I can divine the meaning of the text, I believe the most efficacious tactic to be hiding, very quietly, until the mothership goes away sometime next year.
|
RIP HUARGH's build. I'll always remember you. At least you'll be with us for another few months, until HoTS 
|
Every Zerg I have used thus on has either not GG'd or raged at me. It's kind of funny :D
Also I have an exceptional winrate with this strategy now. Easily 90+% as advertised! The only thing it might be weak to us a roach-hydra push timed for right around when the 3rd base and the mothership are up, but I've found that as long as I have vortex I've pretty much won the game.
|
I played this yesterday, and no idea how to beat. So annoying >.<
Any counters that you Ps have noticed? I'm high plat BTW.
|
Northern Ireland23279 Posts
@ Talon I've heard in terms of defeating the Mothership + Archon toilet shenanigans, running a ton of banelings into the vortex is pretty effective. Saw people theorycrafting this and a few tried it out as a counter to this, but I haven't actually kept track of the thread in question enough to know if their efforts were successful.
|
alright enough with the argue'ing people... it gets us nowhere
1) it doesnt matter if the OP lied about playing GM's. i honestly dont care about that. the question is the build at hand, does it suck or is it good?
2) we all know motherships are a good unit in PvZ and i dont question that. however i do question the validity of this opener. is it TRULY safe?
3) on that regard, is any opener TRULY safe? who really knows. the OP suggests doing a 1gate expand. I feel that 2gate expand is safe however 1gate expand against a good zerg who is playing standard-high-econ-speedling equals the moment your nexus finishes a swarm of lings will kill it, and you cannot "scout" this, and you cannot cancel the nexus, instead you have to drop your nexus at the normal time and HOPE your zerg enemy is bad and doesnt kill your expand and if he does you are behind no matter what.
4) however, maybe point 3 is wrong. maybe 1gate expand IS SAFE? i guess the only way to find the truth to that is point 5
5) if any zergs out there feel like they can easily prove how 1gate expand is stupid and weak, feel free to post in here saying "im willing to 1v1 any protoss in here who thinks 1gate expand is good, and i will show you why its not safe against any standard zerg play"
6) until a zerg actually does that. no amount of the argue'ing going on in this thread is worth any kind of attention. theres no amount of argue'ing going on in this thread that has a point.... theres only 1 thing that actually has value, and thats replays. so create replays, or stop the argue'ing.
7) i realize the OP has replays with him winning, however that doesnt really prove point 3. and also i dont think anyone is here to argue that motherships are a bad unit. The OP says you should get motherships and gateway units to beat zerg. Well guess what, motherships and gateway units are all super powerful against zerg, and i aint going to say any of those options are "bad".... instead, the main focus here is on the BUILD posted in the OP. to be exact, it is an opening build that is touted to be "safe". however, is it TRULY SAFE ???
i feel that answer has yet to be provided in this thread, and the only way to get that answer is with a GOOD ZERG and a GOOD PROTOSS providing replays. no amount of argue'ing will solve anything
|
1Gate FE is not 100% safe.... it's a map dependant build // response to late gas. I don't understand why anyone would argue against this.
You can get away with spamming 1G FE on NA ladder, with CB's on gateway.... if you have certain maps veto'd.
|
On October 25 2011 02:50 Excludos wrote:RIP HUARGH's build. I'll always remember you. At least you'll be with us for another few months, until HoTS
Is there a petition against the removal of carrier/mothership somewhere?
I'm very mad right now. Honestly I don't see any unit worth being completely axed in WoL, just some work.
If only Blizzard didn't stretch themselves so thin with so many projects at once.
|
R.I.P mighty mothersip (
|
This build is the only thing that's made PvZ fun to play again. I would die to roach 1-a time and time again trying to take my third, now I feel like I'm making them react and I can win the mind-game just the way I want to.
My Win-rate has easily been upwards of 80% at high diamond level. In general, it seems that once a mothership comes into play, the zerg forgets the importance of concaves and flanking. The best Zergs either scout what's going on, and trigger an agression switch, or expand, keep up on upgrades, and harrass like crazy.
Infestor play has been of mixed results against this fungal growth's reveal ability does help considerably, though.... the counter-intuitive "solution" to a mothership being out is generally to ignore it, and kill it nearly last. I've survived so many assaults with 10+ corruptors because either my mothership has died, but I've had a deathball left, or my mothership has been left clinging to health after some solid vortex work.
I really hope Blizz doesn't nuke the MS in HoTS like they've been planning. It's a good unit that has only just begun to realize it's potential.
|
The really thing you have to understand is the synergy between archon+zealot+vortex. Vortex just brings every unit to close/melee range, so zealots can do MAXIMUM DPS, as so as Archons ...and with splash. So, you have a build that climbs the tech-tree in a very safe way against zerg exploiting the lack of early anti-air that zerg has with Voids. In the end you have a chained build order that simply works.
|
On October 27 2011 12:01 roymarthyup wrote:
alright enough with the argue'ing people... it gets us nowhere
1) it doesnt matter if the OP lied about playing GM's. i honestly dont care about that. the question is the build at hand, does it suck or is it good?
2) we all know motherships are a good unit in PvZ and i dont question that. however i do question the validity of this opener. is it TRULY safe?
3) on that regard, is any opener TRULY safe? who really knows. the OP suggests doing a 1gate expand. I feel that 2gate expand is safe however 1gate expand against a good zerg who is playing standard-high-econ-speedling equals the moment your nexus finishes a swarm of lings will kill it, and you cannot "scout" this, and you cannot cancel the nexus, instead you have to drop your nexus at the normal time and HOPE your zerg enemy is bad and doesnt kill your expand and if he does you are behind no matter what.
4) however, maybe point 3 is wrong. maybe 1gate expand IS SAFE? i guess the only way to find the truth to that is point 5
5) if any zergs out there feel like they can easily prove how 1gate expand is stupid and weak, feel free to post in here saying "im willing to 1v1 any protoss in here who thinks 1gate expand is good, and i will show you why its not safe against any standard zerg play"
6) until a zerg actually does that. no amount of the argue'ing going on in this thread is worth any kind of attention. theres no amount of argue'ing going on in this thread that has a point.... theres only 1 thing that actually has value, and thats replays. so create replays, or stop the argue'ing.
7) i realize the OP has replays with him winning, however that doesnt really prove point 3. and also i dont think anyone is here to argue that motherships are a bad unit. The OP says you should get motherships and gateway units to beat zerg. Well guess what, motherships and gateway units are all super powerful against zerg, and i aint going to say any of those options are "bad".... instead, the main focus here is on the BUILD posted in the OP. to be exact, it is an opening build that is touted to be "safe". however, is it TRULY SAFE ???
i feel that answer has yet to be provided in this thread, and the only way to get that answer is with a GOOD ZERG and a GOOD PROTOSS providing replays. no amount of argue'ing will solve anything
1) Its good. If you can pull it off, its incredibly strong. The main problem lies in getting there.
2) Opener, yes. Its very solid. The midgame is another story. That is, if you scout and react properly of course. No opener is 100% against everything.
3) Personally I feel 1gate is safe against a lot of things that 3gate usually isn't, especially in regards to early game cheeses that happen before you move out, as you'll be having a higher sentry count a tad earlier. You'll also generally be safe against roach attacks. You can have trouble vs allin ling/bling right after you place the nexus down, which is why its important to scout for this every single game.
4) see 3 
5) MC uses 1gate expo constantly, nuff said
6) See 5 
7) This build does have a lot of problems, but the 1gate expo is not where they lie. The main problem actually arises at two points in the game.
The first is right before or after you take third, and youre mothership may not be done, or be done but you don't have enough energy for vortex yet. I have lost a lot vs roach/hydra allins at this phase in the game. Even if the mothership has enough for vortex, the amount of units can be so overwhelming you simply don't have enough to stop it. This again, comes down to scouting, delaying the third expo, and placing down more gates. But it can be a bit tricky to spot this coming.
The second is when you move out with your 200/200 army. At this point you havent really had any possible way to pressure the zerg, and a lot fo them exploit this by taking every single expo on the map, and meeting your 200/200 with broodlords, banelings, infestors, corrupters and roaches. You don't really have any high dps units to face this with. You could include storm in your composition, but I've had a hard time doing that so far, as vortex naturally clump up your units with the enemey's. Broodlords also annihilate your units, and the only way to deal with them is to vortex them (which, btw, works ridiculously well). However if you also face banelings and infestors, this can be troublesome as well.
But then again, I can't say I'm naturally good at this game..or even simply "good" at all. There is probably houndred of ways to deal with the two issues described above..simply adding voids could be one thing (thought that delays the push a lot, or you'll have a lot less archons). I really wish a progamer could show us how its done, but I have yet to see this.
|
I just want to echo the sentiment that this build has made PvZ incredibly fun for me at a diamond level. It's by far my best MU now.
As for anyone having any questions about how safe it is, it's pretty fucking good. If you want to see how 1gate FE stargate openers handle roach ling all ins, see MC 4-0ing IdrA, where IdrA attempts a roach ling all in 3 times in a row. This build doesnt even xfer probes until the VR is out, to add to it.
Good scouting with your phoenix lets you identify what Z is doing, and in the vacuum after a void ray is out and before Z can pressure you, you power immensely, getting 4 gates + TC + forge + mothership while skimping a bit on gateway units. The way this all times out is amazing, much kudos to the OP.
And yes, I too hope to god that the MS doesn't get removed in HotS.
|
I would really like to see the replay of someone defending 2base roach hydra rush with this build around 11minutes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
