Fast third PvZ?

Protoss Discussion
01/17/2013 12:52 PMPosted by CakeMountain
The main shortcoming in your response is this: you cannot simply talk about scouting and decision making as implied. It is the entire discussion :)
I can and have. Oh, and you haven't even READ the discussion. Go ahead and do that - then we can talk.

Bye.
01/17/2013 01:16 PMPosted by BlackAdder
Your ability to play a game is relevant to your argument that you know the game better than a gm.

It's relevant, but reading between the lines of your overall post, you imply that you couldn't prove a fallacy on the part of a high-level player or even the community. We have evidence they exist: it used to be conventional wisdom at the professional level that a 5 base Zerg could not beat a 3 base Protoss in late game, for example.
The argument that a fast 3rd is a risky hold is amenable to evidence, after all. All you have to do is provide one counter-example of an all-in taking it down. Then you show, based on the resource mining curve (quite provable within a small margin of error for a particular build), that the defender couldn't have substantially more stuff. Then you show that the knowledge the Zerg required to decide to pprepare and execute the attack was attained in-game (or could have been, at low cost). Finally, you demonstrate the lack of a severe micro mistake on the behalf of the defender. Risk established. You can quantify the risk, if you like, by creating a custom map or save file recreating the conditions, then have roughly equal players face off several times and see how the results go.
It's a lot of work, but all of this could be done by any low-level player with a good high level replay in hand. So I really don't buy this "I'm not a high level player so I can't have an opinion or provide any value" crap. You are correct that high-level experience could be used to imply that you've already encountered the equivalent of this experiment, and a low level opinion without evidence is not worth much. But it's wrong to think a low-level player *can't* contribute, even though they often don't.


Not entirely my argument :) so let me clarify if I have lacked eloquence

My points
1. Experience and expertise matter
2. These are not the final authority. Evidence can be entered into argument solidly supporting a claim
Thus:
the claim of a high master or GM cannot easily be refuted by a bronzie, but it can if enough evidence is presented and effectively used.
3. The challenge of a game like sc2 is that theorycrafting can only go so far. When theory crafting is taken out of context-i.e. providing a few examples where x happened claiming y is universally true- things become iffy.
6pooling a terran is generally a bad idea, but it still wins here and there because of the extreme volatility of sc2.
the circumstances are extremely numerous to definitively argue a point, and the replays and explanation required to refute an authority become exponentially extreme.
**If a quote could be entered into evidence by a higher authority(say a GSL or MLG champion), then the bronzie's argument becomes immediately tenable.

4. I have neither supported nor refuted taking a fast 3rd beyond stating that it is a stategy-it exists. I have merely asked where someone gets the stones to disagree with a gm without a logically complete argument-for sc2 the argument burden for a no one is enormous as previously stated.

If they said you can do x, perhaps they should have annotated the complete circumstances or even elaborated. In that sense I will concede to zamara's statement that there are circumstances it is not a good idea, but beyond that I disagree with the manner used with a gm kindly enough to come into the forums offering advice.

Summery(in my humble opinion)

various posters discuss what to do, many opinions are put forth
master, diamonds, and apparently a GM support an idea
zamara descends without tact and conversation becomes heated on both sides
argument argument example argument
I question validity of zamara's argument, especially points where zamara directly references his play experience without discussing what level that might be
we discuss argumentation in the abstract
pew pew at cakemountain
this post
@CakeMountain

Its pointless to even have a discussion with Zamara. That is why I posted:

Just a reminder. I will not discuss anything with you.


He should be banned for life. Not sure why he hasnt been given he has actually called me names in the couple debates I have had with him. Even above he said:

lol... no counter-argument? Ok. Unless you have something more substantial than that, I recommend you learn more about the game. You have some OK advice sometimes, but you're still not knowledgeable enough to be advising people in my humble opinion - but, that aside, it is comical how you responded to my point by point post.


He is begging for a fight. This is exactly why I will not EVER discuss anything with him. Ever on these forums.

http://www.twitch.tv/colminigun/b/357679773 Check the one hour mark of this video. Dropping a third vs a 3 base zerg at exactly 8:30 who then roach all-ins to punish the greed.


Smart man. You should have given me this advice a while ago.
Summery(in my humble opinion)

various posters discuss what to do, many opinions are put forth
master, diamonds, and apparently a GM support an idea
zamara descends without tact and conversation becomes heated on both sides
argument argument example argument
I question validity of zamara's argument, especially points where zamara directly references his play experience without discussing what level that might be
we discuss argumentation in the abstract
pew pew at cakemountain
this post


Pretty accurate summary.
[quote="75922604183"][quote]

various posters discuss what to do, many opinions are put forth
master, diamonds, and apparently a GM support an idea
zamara descends without tact and conversation becomes heated on both sides
argument argument example argument
I question validity of zamara's argument, especially points where zamara directly references his play experience without discussing what level that might be
we discuss argumentation in the abstract
pew pew at cakemountain
this post
you left out the part where you and 3 others purely ignored the said given argiuments and started attacking me :)

Yeah, you missed the whole point of the discussion - I wouldn't regret ignoring your ignorant self right now.

You still have a chance to redeem yourself.

Here is the ACTUAL trend of this thread:

- various posters discuss what to do, many opinions are put forth
- master, diamonds, and apparently a GM support an idea
- zamara descends upon your ignorant souls with facts, and the conversation becomes heated on both sides
- argument argument example argument given by Zamara
- You question validity of zamara's argument, without actually reading, especially points where zamara directly references his play experience (when in fact he never did such a thing to begin with) without discussing what level that might be (since it is irrelevant to the discussion in any case)
- we discuss argumentation in the abstract, especially because your understanding of it is quite lacking
- BlackAdder demonstrates to you the above fact and moves on; you're hung up on it.
- pew pew at cakemountain, if you can call it that, when in fact, all that was done was presenting facts and stating the obvious about how CakeMountain approaches an argument - as demonstrated by BlackAdder and myself.
- your redundant and uninformed post
- my post, showing you for the charlatan you are.

If anything, you could at LEAST go back and read the whole argument/thread, and then come back and counter my specific points as to WHY I am wrong, instead of just saying I am because "GM"... Did you leave your brain in the fridge or something?

This is a debate; I made arguments with supporting facts, you made claims with no facts and no support. Similarly, other posters, including Scrungy and TechNo have done the exact same thing. There is still no evidence that what I am saying is wrong. In fact there is a TOP PRO LEVEL game that proves me right. And it is right there on the MLG website.

My credentials? I am a Bnet forum poster, using logic and facts to back up my arguments, and I keep my ladder information personal because:

a) it is none of anyone's business to be frank
b) there are no grounds to even TRY to Ad Hominem me to discredit anything I say - people are FORCED to debate intelligently or be shown as morons.
01/17/2013 02:14 PMPosted by CakeMountain
4. I have neither supported nor refuted taking a fast 3rd beyond stating that it is a stategy-it exists. I have merely asked where someone gets the stones to disagree with a gm without a logically complete argument-for sc2 the argument burden for a no one is enormous as previously stated.
lol. I have the stones by being smart, and prepared.

I have a completely logical and (more importantly) FACTUAL argument to support my statements, so there being a GM or not disagreeing with me has no bearing on the evidence, especially when the credentials involved with the "evidence" is a level higher than our resident Protoss GM. I find it ludicrous you STILL have not read my posts as I asked you to.
01/17/2013 02:14 PMPosted by CakeMountain
1. Experience and expertise matter

They do. Second hand experience also matters, but in these forums second-hand knowledge is hard to prove.

01/17/2013 02:14 PMPosted by CakeMountain
2. These are not the final authority. Evidence can be entered into argument solidly supporting a claim

Agreed.

01/17/2013 02:14 PMPosted by CakeMountain
3. The challenge of a game like sc2 is that theorycrafting can only go so far. When theory crafting is taken out of context-i.e. providing a few examples where x happened claiming y is universally true- things become iffy.

Actually, this is intrinsic to the nature of theory as opposed to practice. As an engineer, I have a deep appreciation of the merit of each. Part of my post was an attempt to show they can be intelligently combined if you are careful about assumptions and context. One needn't be afraid of theorycrafting if it is done properly and paired (perhaps later) with testing or evidence.

01/17/2013 02:14 PMPosted by CakeMountain
4. I have neither supported nor refuted taking a fast 3rd beyond stating that it is a stategy-it exists. I have merely asked where someone gets the stones to disagree with a gm without a logically complete argument-for sc2 the argument burden for a no one is enormous as previously stated.

I agree that the burden of proof must, for practicality, be on the one who opposes the conventional wisdom of experince.

01/17/2013 02:14 PMPosted by CakeMountain
In that sense I will concede to zamara's statement that there are circumstances it is not a good idea, but beyond that I disagree with the manner used with a gm kindly enough to come into the forums offering advice.

I have been tip-toeing around this point, but I have said multiple times that if one does argue with authority, one should do so with humility and with powerful evidence.
I have been willing to discuss argumentation in abstract, and support Zamara on his right to reasonably argue with supporting evidence because it is the basis on which I also have the right to post. Zamara has been more confrontational that I would prefer (making me hestitant to speak out), but I have noticed most people do that when insulted. I have been patient with Zamara because he contributes to the forum frequently, and except when losing a temper over silly things, is usually helpful to noobies and pretty friendly with anyone who doesn't actually attack him.
I will say Techno and Kitty have also been enormously helpful, but also irritable and pretty impatient with fools. I guess I'm still idealistic enough to think that the silly drama is less about respect for authority than simply respect for other people. If no one lobbed insults, this thread would be over and done.
wol is prettyh much over, and leave me out of the conversation, i stopped reading after 2nd page
you reference you experience directly?

your first explicit reference is post 15, when you discuss your experience with zergs on ladder. This means that it is in the context of the zergs you play, thus requiring us to understand your level of play to evaluate your statement.
We cannot understand your argument without understand what you have dealt with. The arguments of a GM might not entirely apply to a silver as well, because a silver is in an entirely different metagame due to lack of mechanics and general understanding.

My main point of contention remains how you address the matter, not your stance. I do not disagree that zergs have many options to react against risky econ in any way, but I do contest the way you have gone about voicing your opinion. You continue asking me to read your posts, and seem to not understand that my disagreement is not in your "factual" examples or direct argumentation.

The minute you begin calling people names such as "ignorant souls" in post 65 and accusing other of simply being dumb you lose all credibility. It is childish to directly attack people in such a way, and merely invites hostility
01/17/2013 03:30 PMPosted by CakeMountain
your first explicit reference is post 15,
Post # 15
This means against a greedy Zerg with no intention of making any units until he is maxed on drones. Ok, I see now.

Standard macro PvZ is where Zerg actually builds a force (of roaches, or Infestor/roach, or 3 base Muta, or 3 base Infestor/ling) to pressure Protoss so that he cannot get a 3rd base up that quickly, as far as the meta has gone so far in high level tournaments... Even on ladder, it is RARE that I get a passive Zerg where I am left alone to just take bases like that, because it is otherwise considered RISKY. But, kitty seems to be talking about just that ONE situation where Zerg is being greedy - not standard PvZ.

EDIT:
In either case, I did not deserve to be insulted for no reason... I thought we were all friends in these parts. Maybe I was mistaken.


Nothing in this post refers to my credentials. Not directly or indirectly.

What are you smoking?
I don't think I've ever seen such a narcissistic poster with such a big ego on these forums before. Back on the ignore list with you.
I did not say credentials, I said experience.
"on ladder, it is RARE that I get a passive Zerg where I am left alone"
this is you referring to your experience

I am really not trying to start a fight here. Your argumentation was about as good as theorycrafting can get(and in context of discussing cons of a strat you offered great insight), but you come in too hot and suddenly the only thing that matters is the guy making everyone mad.

It is fine to not want to post on main for whatever reason, but it would be far more productive to offer your arguments with a less aggressive method.
Yes you kind of got bum rushed(I will cop to be snarky with my second response even), but if you are right let the argument speak for itself.
You may not realize it, but by stating that "Doesn't work like that unless your Zerg is a noob" you imply directly negative traits to everyone that likes and/or uses this strat.
It is not surprising that kitty would give a counter burn after you implied that his opponents(which translates to him because they are who he is placed against) are noobs.

One slight, however minor, only leads to additional slights and the deterioration of a thread. It might not be intentional- and merely meant to add flair to the argument-, but people are going to assume it was.
Are you still arguing about this...? 4 gate robo into 3rd at 8 minutes is EXTREMELY safe, I don't understand why Zamara is trying to deny that after everyone says it is.

http://drop.sc/296124

My playing was extremely bad that game but I did a 4 gate robo expand for 3rd base at 8 minutes and he even pressured with roach hydra, I did poorly but even so I still held it off, 4 gate robo is very good.
01/17/2013 07:11 PMPosted by AMadWalrus
4 gate robo into 3rd at 8 minutes is EXTREMELY safe,
Against greedy Zergs.

I read your comments Cake, through the revealing of ignored posts, and I will apologize for the attitude I presented, but I still maintain that I have not been refuted yet, as no one has brought forth any counter that goes against what I have said. Every example presented on the other end of the argument has been of Zergs playing greedy or poorly; as such, I think I will stop debating this since I think I made my point, albeit a little harshly, for which I apologize.

I'll unblock you, Cake as you seem reasonable. Thanks for your patience - the grumpiness has less to do with the topic and more to do with my IRL "situation". Hope I did not cause too much damage around these parts :P
Against greedy Zergs.


Against standard zergs, considering standard is get 3 bases before 5 minutes, obviously if you see a cheesy 2 base all in coming you get ready to defend it
01/18/2013 06:56 AMPosted by AMadWalrus
Against standard zergs, considering standard is get 3 bases before 5 minutes, obviously if you see a cheesy 2 base all in coming you get ready to defend it
There is more to standard Zerg than just 3 basing at or before 5 mins.

Greedy here refers to over-droning without making units, not teching to lair until you have all your drones, sometimes taking a 4th as you tech to Lair... Or in some cases, going straight for infestor tech and Broodlords on 3 base Hive.

Dumb stuff like that, which can be punished by matching Zerg's expo count with a fast 3rd which is a calculated risk, because we KNOW Zerg cannot have enough units to prevent us from taking that base, which allows Protoss to have their lategame tech SOONER, and beat a Zerg rushing for hive.
there generally isn't much room for both macroing up and making an army(outside of light harass-usually requiring gas rather than mins), and this is especially true with z. z isn't going to make units until they need them. the later the game goes the more they will start to prepare for timings-their own or opponents- but for the most part they are holding down the drone button, upgrading, and teching.

there really isn't such a thing as "overdroning" unless it is to not switch fast enough from drones to units when aggression is scouted or over-saturating without reason. standard z play is drone until its time to defend or attack, and you can usually scout whats up with your obs early game. if you don't see many drones transferring to third, or an early roach warren you need to be rdy for something; but if you see drones and queens going about their business you have to match their econ or get aggro

You should be macroing up, making more gates and pumping econ when it is safe. toss or terran are not quite as fast as z when it comes to flipping to unit production but if you are making units when you dont need to you are crippling your econ and ability to defend later attacks. Playing too safe early on is a risk because if they crazy outmacro you then they can just lean on you mid to late game with a sweet A-move.

the part that gets tricky is when your opponent can deny effective scouting-usually not an issue early game if you open robo- and then you get blind sided

there is absolutely no "correct choice" that fits all situations beyond send probes to mine at the start of the game, scout/make decisions-and have good mechanics :P
01/18/2013 08:28 PMPosted by CakeMountain
there generally isn't much room for both macroing up and making an army(outside of light harass-usually requiring gas rather than mins), and this is especially true with z. z isn't going to make units until they need them. the later the game goes the more they will start to prepare for timings-their own or opponents- but for the most part they are holding down the drone button, upgrading, and teching.
That's correct. And, as for timings, Zerg is forced to make defensive roaches and spine crawlers with a 3 base play, at certain times, even when Protoss is not really going to attack, because otherwise if they DO, and none of those pieces are in place, Zerg auto-loses. In a more extreme example, the 2 base Immortal/sentry all-in is based around that concept that Zerg will not have enough defenses/units up yet to hold this push, and that's why this timing is so deadly.

However, as Zergs scout this strategy and prepare with enough defenses (now), we see this strategy losing its effectiveness, but still keeps Zergs honest by pushing the timing required for defense a little sooner, and forces slightly more units or spines preemptively. Greedy Zergs that just 3 base Hive just die to this all-in. This is an example of exploiting a Zerg's greed.

You cannot afford to just generalize that Zergs are just droning and teching/upgrading until they "need to make units". It is not as simple. It IS true that is GENERALLY the case, but nuances in timings make a huge difference in whether a Zerg SHOULD make earlier defenses, or continue droning like nothing's the matter. That's why taking a fast 3rd against a Zerg who does nothing but drone and delay tech to get more drones sooner is a calculated risk based on scouting that shows that Zerg is still just making drones and limited units while still delaying Hive and is getting a late Infestation Pit or Spire.

there really isn't such a thing as "overdroning"
Unfortunately for many greedy Zerg, there is. If you make too many drones against the Immortal/Sentry all-in, you have too few larvae left to make defensive units and spines. You just over-droned.

standard z play is drone until its time to defend or attack,
Again, as explained above - not that simple. There are nuances to take into account that are exceptions to this rule. Standard Z play actually takes into account those nuances by delaying some droning (with some unit production at a certain timing) even with no attack coming, followed by additional tech while adding more drones tentatively. Leenock, NesTea, Curious, and Losira are known to do this.

Leenock does it but then takes it further because he knows he can take a certain hit in economy by not making the "optimum drone count", but have enough units to pressure a Protoss trying to take a 3rd. And if the Protoss took the 3rd without teching enough or getting a string enough defensive army, Leenock just kills him. This ties in to what I have been saying, on a more detailed level.

Leenock sometimes takes the initiative and goes balls out 2 base Infestor/ling with a delayed 3rd, and soft-counters the Immortal/Sentry all-in, denies a fast 3rd from Protoss (by default as he is only getting 2 bases and teching), and he obtains enough map control to either get a 3rd and Hive, or double expand then tech to hive after Spire and uses Corruptor/Infestor/ling as his midgame map control army which tends to negate some potency of Warp-Prism play before Broodlord tech.

In this case, it shows you that Zerg has enough tools to be safe against a fast 3 base attempt by Protoss, and at the same time it reiterates that Zerg in standard play DOES slow down droning momentarily to build defensive Roach/ling then resumes droning while teching.

The greedy Zergs I referred to previously just straight up drone to 80, THEN tech, THEN make units for lategame, while staying mostly on a very light ling count and queens + creep for vision and scouting. These Zergs tend to forgo an army and go straight for Hive tech without any defense; not even spines/spores...

The above is more and more common in the current meta. It does not make it standard play, unless you want to call taking big risks "standard". These relatively new 3 base Protoss plays are a RESPONSE to this greed by Zerg as there are NO units to pressure Protoss doing this.

Against a standard Zerg that makes defensive units and techs before maxing out on drones, Protosses doing this just die a very one-sided death, as exemplified by the game between Leenock and Oz at MLG. Why? Protoss has no real tech aside from Robo (without Bay) and a Twilight Council BARELY finishing and mostl Sentry/Immortal/Zealot and a handful of stalkers + 4-6 gates AT MOST. This makes it VERY EASY for a standard Zerg to just come in with Roach/ling or Roach/Infestor.
4 gates, robo and harrass. Expand behind the harrass. Should be expanding at or around 8 minutes, earlier at 7:30 if possible. I've seen Minigun play ubber greedy and with a zealot and 2 stalkers poking around to keep the zerg occupied he expanded before 7:30.

Just poke and prod. Scouting a 3rd FE from the zerg is key, 2 base means all in or muta ling, etc.
4 gates, robo and harrass. Expand behind the harrass. Should be expanding at or around 8 minutes, earlier at 7:30 if possible. I've seen Minigun play ubber greedy and with a zealot and 2 stalkers poking around to keep the zerg occupied he expanded before 7:30.

Just poke and prod. Scouting a 3rd FE from the zerg is key, 2 base means all in or muta ling, etc.
Yes, but keep in mind, if Zerg made units, it is impossible to harass and expand. You NEED to play defensive in that case, and pray that Zerg did not tech behind the pressure he will be putting on your 3rd.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum