EPTI hope those with the wisdom and the ability to parse out amusing sidebars from meaningful and serious inquiry into the nature of the game will be able to provide some answers here. Basically, I wan't to know about the HF=C (Hatch First = cannons) formula. Should we apply it? Should we fake it? What is a victory in attempting it? How does a nerd baller do it correctly?
There is a general idea floating around out there in the vast world of Starcraft 2 knowledge that essentially goes a little something like this: in PvZ, if P goes FFE and Z goes hatch first, then P should punish said Zerg with some form of "cannon action". One might consider this in the form of an if/then equation or formula. IF P = FFE and Z = HF then P=CIZFF* I know that this is really heady stuff for you guys but I trust with sufficient substance ingestion that perhaps, even if only on a subconscious level or perhaps on a different plane of existence, the concepts we are dealing with here will sink into your mind and perhaps permeate your very essence of being. Could be expecting a bit much in this department but I tend to shoot for the moon, if you know what I mean.
Perhaps I'm being a bit generous in saying that this knowledge is just floating around out there in the world of SC2 knowledge. I'm well aware of a school of thought that believes essentially in ALWAYS adhering to the formula. In fact, I'm sure many will respond to this by deriding me for being some kind of noob doofus who doesn't know that of course you punish a hatch-firsting Zerg with cannons every goddamn time. When I say "floating around" I suppose I mean that I've read it and heard it in many places, obviously spanning a wide berth of source reliability. A seriously wide fucking berth, that is for sure.
For me personally, execution of the strat seems to be a major limiting factor. It seems like all too often I lose the probe in stupid ways, fail to get any cannons down, and basically do more damage to myself and my own timings than the Z player. Reminds me of my first lesson with Chad mother fucking Jones. He told me not to be fucking around with pylon blocking the Zerg player if it was going to start causing me timing issues at home by harassing myself instead of him. Part of my issues in executing the build result in a lack of practice and for highest efficiency, one needs a cool Zerg practice partner to play with. This is something that I lack but only briefly for I have found what appears to be a rather cool group of guys in the form of a clan. Only time will tell though.
But just because I FEEL that my execution of the tactic is shit doesn't necessarily imply that what I'm doing isn't always cost effective or useful in some small way. And besides, I'm exaggerating to some extent simply to help illustrate my point. I'll admit that if the end goal of the strategy is to ultimately take down his natural hatchery then that happens in maybe 2-10 attempts for me personally. I simply fail to place canons and pylons in the positions I know will make it the most difficult for them to be taken down. Maybe that's part of my problem, I try to get too cute with the building placements. I just know that when they can be thrown down in those key areas where only a few lings and drones can attack at once that it is of course way more cost effective, and that is the name of the game. Again, simple practice will remedy this.
This raises many questions for me that I'm hoping you smarter, more handsome and experienced nerd ballers can help me understand. First, how often should we adhere to the formula? Percentage wise of PvZ games where P has gone FFE (which could possibly decline with a meta-game shift) and Z goes Hatch first, how often should one attempt cannon action? Is it worth it to at least attempt every time? Is the very act of throwing a pylon down, blocking the natural location, and/or forcing drone pulls off the line worth it (assuming of course everything stays kosher at home)?
Now you smarter kids out there will be noticing this term "cannon action" and with a healthy dose of something undoubtedly a mix of the highly intellectual imbued with pompous snobbery, question my usage of said term. Well played good sirs. The reason I use this term is because I feel that the typical criterion for a "cannon rush" are not a factor in the kind of cannon utilization that one needs to engage in to effectively punish a Zerg for going hatch first. I feel that is this absolutely important. Assuming we believe in the HF=C formula then we must absolutely cost effectively place the correct number of pylons and cannons in the most effective and intelligent locations possible to get the most out of attempting the strategy. But again, I am wondering at what point can one call their attempt to cannon the natural hatch of a Z player a victory?
Is it enough to simply get them to pull a bunch of drones and delay their natural hatchery expansion timing (and hopefully various other timings due to lost mining time) ? Say you get a cannon or two down but not before they were so damaged that in the end, you only forced and killed a decent amount of zerglings and hopefully workers? What then? What is the ideal number of cannons and pylons to attempt to get down? Is this a byproduct of what your end game is? Does one preemptively try and use the meta-game knowledge of the HF=C formula to simply try and scare the Zerg into pulling more drones than they really need to?
Obviously each case scenario is going to be different and the exact number of buildings in play, how long the nexus was delayed, and other variables will result in differing results. So to simplify and try to glean something meaningful from this tirade of mine I'll try and focus on a choice few more questions that have arisen from my personal inquiry into this subject, the time span of which is undoubtedly approaching almost a full hour, possibly more.
Is the formula something absolute that we should adhere to as Toss players who have presumably forge expanded? If so, then a body of knowledge regarding effective execution of cannon action against Z's on varying maps needs to be compiled by one of our resident Nerd Ballers when and if they have the time. Alej, Cecil, NrGMonk, Col.RSVP, VoidRay, Tang and any others (Sorry if I missed you, Alcohol impairs the memory) if you're out there reading this and agree that us lesser players could benefit from some guidance on cost effective cannon responses to hatch-firsting Zerg's, I humbly request an enlightening guide on the subject.
In the end, is it worth it to adhere to the formula assuming you have the multitask ability? Obviously if you can't multitask well enough then you need not really bother. However, if one has the skill, should the formula be adhered to or at the very least attempted in an attempt to at the very least scare the Zerg into an overly economic stressful response?
If there is one thing I have learned from playing as Zerg is that you have to CONSTANTLY be on the look out for anything because if you miss the slightest thing, do not place your ovies smartly, miss that probe moving out for the reinforcement pylon, and all those other things you're supposed to be monitoring and picking up on you are fucked. As a result of this potential fuckage, Zerg players are a skittish bunch and they scare easily. With good reason I might add, but still. Because of this, isn't simply FAKING a cannon rush each time they hatch first a better response? I'm just riffing here but if you fake it and get them to pull a shitload of drones and make lings and such only to have you basically cancel all your cannons in the end haven't you come out on top? Not to mention, say they're on to your whole faking the cannon thing...well shit, then you can do it for real and catch them off guard, no?
I hope those with the wisdom and the ability to parse out amusing sidebars from meaningful and serious inquiry into the nature of the game will be able to provide some answers here. Basically, I wan't to know about the HF=C formula. Should we apply it? Should we fake it? What is a victory in attempting it? How does a nerd baller do it correctly?
Show me the way brothers. Special thanks to Wilson Creek Winery and Vineyards, my new champagne sponsors. And I was always told drinking doesn't pay. HAH! Their Almond flavor is my favorite and I always down a bottle before queuing up games of SC2 or Crossfire. Insert cool picture of me drinking champagne with a hot Asian model licking the foam off a carefully placed champagne bottle.
**A few responses to the knee-jerk bullshit jack-off answers that flopped from the mouths of some of TL's finest**
a) I didn't ask my question in the simple questions, simple answers thread because SC2 is a highly nuanced game and the specificities I was struggling with, albeit with a relatively simple problem by nature, WERE NOT FUCKING SIMPLE. In other words, I had not a simple question NOR a simple answer because as I said, Starcraft is highly fucking nuanced. I COULD have phrased things simply but THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN THE ANSWER I WAS TRULY LOOKING FOR
b) The SQ/SA thread isn't the place to go when anyone wants serious discourse over a subject. Its where you go for simple fucking answers which, guess what, isn't what I was looking for.
c) My assumption that there were those with the ability to head what I rightly decided to BOLD for fucks sake was indeed that, an assumption and nothing more. It seems the ability to parse out amusing sidebars (or at least amsuing imo) from meaningful and serious inquiry is not an ability that is as nearly present in the TL community as I thought.
Oh well, no biggie. At least I enjoyed my own post and the fact that I got a small taste of the pompous bullshit I KNEW was coming. That was funny at least.
