Quote:
Originally Posted by templar rage
I'm not really sure how I'm twisting your words.
I gave the context in the quote
Quote:
You use 2v2 experiences to support claims that you are/would be really good at 1v1s. You continually do so, despite being told by pretty much everyone that 2v2 experience is irrelevant to 1v1s.
I make no claim that I am really good. 2v2 is still starcraft, the same concepts apply, the best random 2v2 is still going to be a beast in 1v1, the best 2v2 is probaly also one of the best in 1v1 and vice versa.
Quote:
Serious question: what 1v1 do you think you belong in?
I cannot say, lots of silver players are better than platinum players... I was in 2v2 the other day and some guy was calling me a noobbecause I was trying a bc build off 1 base which did not work. so I challenged him to 1v1, he said 'lol silver league ok then' so I played him and owned him, he was diamond 1v1. I have played gold players in 1v1 who have owned me, these are usually toss players. Once I plug a leak or two then pretty sure I could give masters players a good game in all conditions.
Quote:
Also, no, you aren't playing a macro game if you just do a 1base AI.
this build is not a 1v1 base all in, I am just being aggressive early as to constrict and pressure their game play. If they chrono zealots I am going to double expand. If the fights are equal then we will macro at steady pace, continuing to macro as normal but always fighting at the same time. I have come to relaise that this is the key to having a stronger learnign curve as it forces multitasking. It also forces a very similar system in the decision tree meaning I will become more efficient wheras opponenets ould be investing experience into different types of games. It is like someone can be very strong withroy lopez doing it over and over and beat a stronger player with this opening but overall being a poorer player, but does that matter? what is wrong with always doing the roy lopez?
Quote:
1base AIs are basically short-stacking at a poker table. You're looking to minimize the skill disadvantage by shortening the hand. Macro games are sitting down with 100BBs or more. You try to capitalize on your skill advantage by drawing the hand out as long as possible. It's exactly the same in SC2. The longer the game goes, the more opportunities the better player has to make more correct decisions, which leads to a win. In case you couldn't tell, I'm talking about cash games btw, so I don't wanna hear "but in a tournament, sometimes you're forced to play a short stack". By only doing silly 1base AIs every game, you're admitting that you're an inferior player. Because, in actuality, a superior player wants the game to go on as long as possible because of the reason above.
All games start with both being a short stack. You can start and continue to be aggressive as stacks increase. It really is a bad analogy anyway.
Quote:
Btw, 11/11 rax is cheese. Cutting economy for an earlier attack is pretty much a universal attribute of cheese.
It is hardly losing any economy, it is a sacrifice in order to damge their economy or win. If I don't attack then they can just not buid any units and macro, it is like letting zerg drone constantly, it is a mistake, if I do this tactic I cannot moan when they punish it with aggression and cry 'cheese noob!'. I am not doing the 8 marine+scv pull all in, I am sending a few marines and tryign to build a bunker, kills probes, do good trades, and macro behind it, outplay from the start. Cannon rush is defined as cheese and they are vasytly different. Nexus first might aswell be called a cheese. Again, cheese is a dumb word, there are just different openings. All I'm doing is developing a defined system on how to play and channeling my thoughts through this medium as this is a place where starcraft 2 thoughts can collect and evolve, at least I hoped.
Last edited by Mt.FishNoob; 01-14-2012 at 11:54 AM.