Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
OL? Um, no? If the Zerg goes muta on 3 base, you have no Twilight Council, not even NEARLY close to enough gates to make Stalkers, and you are very far from Templar tech.
Just watched Sase run a 4 gate robo with ~8:30 expand. He builds the twilight council a couple minutes after the expand, and the other 3 gateways are also at the 3rd. So by the time mutas hit 3 minutes later, he had 7+ gates, a few cannons in place, and blink started. He still lost because he came out too far behind when harassing the Zerg's third, and so was too light on units when all the zerglings and mutas flooded his natural. Then he lost critical pylons and couldn't warp in. But it didn't look like the build was non-viable, just looked like he lost.
I specifically mentioned 4 gate robo...
It is when you play against a 3 base tech Zerg then try to go 4 gate robo into 3rd...
It is not standard - my point. It is a niche strategy that only works if your Zerg opponent is playing greedy and/or passive.
If u watch PartinG, he will HUGE risk such as blind nexus first pvz and in pvt go for fast 3rd b4 his 2nd and 3rd gateway and pvp no probe scout 1 or 2 gate expand.That's because he knows his opponent. It is a metagame move. Notice that Parting has suffered greatly against Zerg players who actually play safe against his greedy/risky opening.
If you read my previous comments, I actually agree with this, and said there is nothing wrong in playing greedy when you CAN.
But, PLEASE, do NOT tout it as standard play, which is what TechNo is trying to do... And it is a dumb idea.
Same here. I recommend you go back and read my post with less fervor and more objectivity. No offense, but you only skimmed my posts without actually reading the content.
I clearly mentioned 4 gate Robo into 3rd, not 1 gate 3 base (which is stupidly risky in 99% of cases except against extremely greedy and passive Zergs, while 4 gate robo into 3rd is relatively safer, but still risky against teching Zergs).
He tends to favor zealots over blink stalker which Leenock can easily exploit with roach infestor. Oz played 1 game on NA server on his stream vs Jookto and lost. Oz is a code s korean while Jookto barley competes in GSL. Minigun has a positive record vs Jookto using the very greedy style he uses.The specific match I am talking about was on Cloud Kingdom, and Oz went for FFE into 4 gate + Robo, and then got mauled by Leenock's Infestor/Roach. His initial roaches did minimal damage due to FF and Immortals, but as soon as Leenock arrived with Infestors (and 4 bases at that stage), Oz was screwed because he had no tech to handle the Infestors. he lost his 3rd, then proceeded to lose his natural from Roaches at the same time the attack on his 3rd happened, at which point he gg'ed...
He barely had 1 colossus out, and only had minimal Bink Stalker numbers to supplement his Immortal/Sentry.
I wasn't picking on Oz; I am merely stating a real example of when this kind of play fails and why it isn't standard against a standard, non-greedy play by Zerg who techs.
We are talking about Suppy, Scarlett, and Kane. If Scarlett is beating players like Liquid Hero, Bomber, DangraeGu and Ryung in a bo3 or a bo5 then she can definently be regardes as a top tier zerg. Suppy barely gets beat by players like liquid hero or PartinG in a bo5.Sure. That does not mean that what I am saying is invalid either - Leenock is a 2 time MLG champion, a Code S champion and has more accomplishments as a Zerg player than those you mention. He is also very well known for his REALLY good micro and army control. When I say that he is better than the rest, I actually am stating facts here...
Scarlett is actually one of my favorite Zergs to watch because she is good with unit control as well, but she is not close to Leenock, and she hasn't won a GSL Code S title yet, not even a runner-up. So, I'd keep her on my pending list of champions until she achieves something as great as Leenock has. I love her skill, and I am a fan of her, but when we are talking about how good players are, Leenock is better than the bunch.
In that light, when I say he beat a top level Protoss like Oz who was essentially taking a risk with an early 3rd, by using a standard macro/tech play with infestors, it validates my premise more than anything. It means that 4 gate robo after FFE into a 3rd base at 8-8:20 mins is a RISK that is based on exploiting a Zerg's greed/passivity.
That's my point.
Kane doesnt compete in tournaments much but is always consisently being top 16 gm and rank 1 gm this season and last season and has beaten high level korean players like Creatorprime in playhem in a bo5. Just shows you that these top 16 grandmasters arent too far off from koreans.I'll be honest, I have NEVER heard of Kane, but I will look out for him now. Thanks :)
If I were you, I'd reserve judgment. Especially once you read the comments I have made in their entirety, without just skimming through them. :)
Thank you for your confidence in me - it is very flattering; I really appreciate it.
I Posted on these forums 6 months ago that we were experimenting with fast thirds.....8-9 minute thirds vs zerg. Its situational and map dependent but its not that hard to do a third off one gate if you were diligent in getting your sentries and have a natural choke point to prevent being punished by roach or ling play.
Walling in your third with gates and getting cannons to defend is not that hard.....the problem always becomes that by doing this you have put yourself in a position that altars most of your strong timing attacks......
As Kitty was talking about.....simply building sentries off one gate and then SENTRY expanding is not that hard even against a semi aggressive zerg......it just presents a new set of issues once you've established your third.
Edited by ScRuNgY on 1/17/2013 6:20 AM PST
I Posted on these forums 6 months ago that we were experimenting with fast thirds.....8-9 minute thirds vs zerg. Its situational and map dependent but its not that hard to do a third off one gate if you were diligent in getting your sentries and have a natural choke point to prevent being punished by roach or ling play.One preexisting condition:
Zerg is being greedy and passive.
Otherwise, this play just does not work, even with timely sentries.
It is, against a teching Zerg who just mauls your walls/ignores them using Infested Terrans, which are known to roflstomp sentries :)
Or, you get auto-KOed by 3 base Muta.
That's not the only alteration you're making... You're making yourself vulnerable to a standard teching Zerg, because you're taking a risk and being greedy. Unless Zerg is being greedy too, this play is not recommended; that's why it works at pro level and GM, because the players at that level know how to spot a greedy Zerg, but if they misread that, like FXOz did against Leenock at MLG, they just lose.
No. That's not at all what kitty was talking about.
Just a reminder. I will not discuss anything with you.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.
You don't want to discuss anything with me? Fine by me ^_^
is zamara a smurf account? I assume someone that has never played the game wouldn't be trying to tell master+ players how to play, so it has to be a smurf accountI recommend to read beyond skimming.
good recommendation....still didn't see a reference to your experience. In the Greek argument this would be fine, but in modern western thought we highly value authority whether it is your own or borrowed. You attempt to borrow authority by referencing real players and games, which is the right idea, but you are taking everything out of context by removing the element of scouting and decision making.
Did the players in your examples have all of the scouting info? was anything hidden? did a player take a risk that simply did not pay off, or a risk that payed off very well? The gm and high masters are pulling from high level experience in addition to the same vids you have seen.
Perhaps you have not calculated these decision making elements due to not playing the game?
Do you really think that gms don't face aggressive players? they deal with that by scouting and decision making. You don't decide on going 3 bases during the load up screen....
So, I recommend you try the game out rather than back seat theorcrafting off of your youtube experience :)
Edited by CakeMountain on 1/17/2013 10:22 AM PST
It's not really important, as long as the facts and arguments speak for themselves. I have provided enough information backed by factual incidents that I don't need to present my "badge" to enable you to think more intelligently. I think you can do without the "badge" to understand a well-supported argument, which I have already provided.
No, it is called supporting my claims with actual facts and evidence. You can INTERPRET it as me "borrowing authority", but that's not what I did.
I thought this was a high level discussion. Scouting and decision-making is IMPLIED. Also, if you actually read the arguments, you'd notice that I was never against being greedy as long as you scout Zerg being greedy as well, and hellokitty did not deny this either, because that's HIS basis for using these builds. I think you REALLY need to read the arguments. You clearly have not.
Yes. You can even obtain the game in question via MLG's website.
Oz scouted Leenock going for a normal 3 base play, but still tried to go ahead with his 4 gate Robo in to 3rd build, because Leenock is also known to cut corners at unexpected moments, but sadly for Oz, Leenock did not this time, and crushed face.
It's the Cloud Kingdom game, FYI.
If that were true, my arguments would not be as strong as they are. Unfortunately for you, I play the game a lot, and I have implied good decision-making and scouting in the discussion, because we aren't talking about Low Diamond scrubs, but GM and pro level play.
Maybe you should let go of your preconceived ideas about me, and actually take me up on my recommendation:
Read the thread in its entirety. Yeah?
Exactly. It is a NICHE strategy to go for fast 3 bases as Protoss, not the norm/standard in PvZ.
That's my entire point.
Read the thread.
Players like you should really learn the game instead of spewing BS like this - I guess Leenock was "theorycrafting" too when he brought down Oz at MLG. Sorry, but your BS stinks.
Again, this is not youtube experience (whatever that is), but actual gameplay at the top-most levels. You don't seem to know what you're talking about, so far, so why don't you go back to ladder and improve, and learn how to play at a higher level, before looking like a fool in a discussion where you actually need to use your brains.
Here are some known facts (at high level play):
In PvZ, going 3 base off 4 gates and a Robo is suicide against a 3 base tech Zerg. Going 3 base off 4 gate Robo against a greedy Zerg is fine. Going 1 gate into double Nexus is alright against a passive and greedy Zerg who is not bothering to scout you, or who is not planning to apply pressure but wants a 15 min Broodlord timing with infestors, by cutting corners. Doing it against a normal 3 base build will get you killed at 9-10 mins in, if not sooner with a speedling all-in :P If you scout a Zerg being greedy, punish him by taking a fast 3rd. If not, then stick to standard 2 base timings and stay safe until you CAN take a 3rd at 10-12 mins.
If you're just learning to play Protoss, don't just do what the pros do blindly, like you're suggesting. If you understood the matchup, you would not be having this conversation with me. You clearly don't.
Seriously, stop trying to make me look bad with Ad Hominems you cannot even back up.
I also see players like Minigun and Sase doing 4G Robo expands and holding against aggressive Zergs, which makes me think Zamara is wrong about that one.I'd have to watch HOW they do that, and what exactly the Zerg is doing to acquiesce that I am wrong about this. Did the Zergs take risks too while trying to be aggressive? Did they use high tech or low tech aggression? Did they delay drones? Did they make too many drones? Did they do a blind attack purely because they saw a nexus and did not see the robo or sentry count? Did Minigun have PERFECT forcefields, and against multi-pronged roach/ling attacks, did he have better multitasking or worse? ALL these come into consideration.
4 Gate robo into fast 3rd is a CALCULATED RISK. It is STILL a risk. I'll check out Minigun's stream in the next few days and see what he is doing, and what is his Zerg counterpart doing as well (although that can be hard in a stream setting). I'll probably have to scour replay sites, eventually, but as is, I think I am reasonably correct in stating that 4 gate robo into fast 3rd base for Protoss in PvZ is NOT a standard strategy, and it assumes Zergs being greedy and/or cutting corners.
I am going to stick to that until I am proven wrong, either by the plays of SaSe and Minigun, or by someone with a more reasonable argument that one I have provided.
Oh, dat ninja edit O_O
In any case, that's cool :) At least if there is something to it, I will accept that I am wrong, but only after I study those replays and VODs, and actually see this build trumping normal 3 base Zerg (where they did not take unnecessary risks or cut corners).
Edited by Zamara on 1/17/2013 12:00 PM PST
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.
Edited by ScRuNgY on 1/17/2013 12:35 PM PST
I understand the desire for evidence. And what I have is mostly that I've seen it play out by pros fairly commonly on ladder, and it seems like it has strengths and weaknesses but doesn't necessarily outright die to anything the Zerg might decide to do based off of normal scouting on normal play. Based on that and the opinion of high level players, it seems at least semi-standard. But yeah, I don't really have proof, so I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion based on that.
I defend the right to argue based on facts and the right of low as well as higher level players to post. I also opine that it should be done in a reasonable and hopefully somewhat humble fashion. But it's getting a little hot in here, so I'm a mite hesitant to say something that might be misinterpreted by one of those watching eyes. :)
Edited by BlackAdder on 1/17/2013 12:33 PM PST
First: My argument is that you have no room to argue against a high master or gm outside of a very specific point which requires extensive evidence-evidence that is perhaps impossible to supply with sc2. It is popular knowledge that 6pooling a terran is not a good idea, but you still see code S players use it successfully here and there.
You cannot cry ad hominem, and then also add that you play all the time. Either it is irrelevant or relevant :)
therefore, if you have so much gaming experience, post on your account and I will be refuted-baring that it is a lowbie account.
As far as your logical fallacy argument: I understand that you got to chapter 3 in your comp class this semester and like to say ad hominem, but you are using it incorrectly. Your experience is directly relevant to your argument. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy linking an unrelated characteristic to the argument.
A convicted child molester cannot refute a school's decision to not hire them by claiming ad hominem because the child molesting is directly relevant to the decision. Your ability to play a game is relevant to your argument that you know the game better than a gm.
The main shortcoming in your response is this: you cannot simply talk about scouting and decision making as implied. It is the entire discussion :)
Quick 3 base is a choice to be made in specific circumstances. Discussing 3, heck 10 games, where a player did strat x and lost is kind of swallowed up the same as every other strat. Can you show a build that cannot be refuted by posting a game where it failed? Does that invalidate a strat?
I am not coming out in favor or against a fast third because I LACK THE AUTHORITY for my opinion to matter about sc2, but I can discuss the argumentation if nothing else.
There are plenty of bronzies and other lowbies that issue their very important opinions, but in the face of people that actually play and play well......ya
Edited by CakeMountain on 1/17/2013 12:56 PM PST
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.
Edited by BlackAdder on 1/17/2013 1:24 PM PST
I approve this message,I'd have to watch HOW they do that, and what exactly the Zerg is doing to acquiesce that I am wrong about this
Also to add to your second post:
I also reserve the right to question anything and everything unless there is enough evidence/proof to the contrary to my arguments. Even if the claims come from a reknowned or "sois-disant" reputable source ,such as a GM level player, it is not wrong to question that claim and analyze the details - not doing so and blindly accepting what a GM says as fact without verification is no different from just accepting what a low level ladder scrub would say without verification either. I provided my side of the verification; time for CarkeMountain, Scrungy, and the rest of the bunch to man up and provide me with some verification for THEIR claims as well. So far, none is forthcoming.
Note how every opposing party that has gone against me so far, aside from you BlackAdder, HAVE IGNORED everythig I posted and just responded to maybe the first sentence of every paragraph. So, I ALSO reserve the right to call BS when I see it.
Btw, thanks for the support :) I know it IS hot in here, but if a couple of cool heads could knock some reason into these knuckleheads, we could actually have a civilized conversation, you know? :P
Added some missing stuff :P
Edited by Zamara on 1/17/2013 1:46 PM PST
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.