My motivation for doing this was that people have always claimed that ZvZ is just build order rock-paper-scissors. But how true is that claim? And even if it is mostly true there are still games when players win despite a build order disadvantage; examining such games should be quite educational.
There are also lots of other questions to be answered. How frequently do various builds get used? How do these choices vary across 2/3/4 player maps? How do certain build order fare against each other? Do certain players favor certain builds? And so on.
Anyways, on to the results!
People say ZvZ is 9p>12h>12p>9p
12h v 12p: 28-17 12p v 9p: 13-11 9p v 12h: 20-7
but it seems closer to 9p>>>12h>>12p>9p. It would be nice to have a larger sample size for 12p v 9p.
What about builds other than those three?
Build frequencies: 12h - 134 12p - 127 9p - 81
overgas - 58
overpool - 11 10h - 3 9h - 1 4p - 1
Overgas stands out as something we're not considering. OK, so how does it fit into the picture? My understanding was that it hard counters 9pool but is way behind vs later pool builds
overgas vs... 12h: 2-4 12p: 8-11 9p: 6-5
overpool: 2-1 4p: 0-1
but it seems that overgas doesn't really have such a simple characterization. And the others?
For obvious reasons, I only used games from TLPD that had VODs
For simplicity's sake, I grouped the builds by the timing of the first building each player built. The downside of this is that there are no distinctions in the data between things like normal 12pool vs "map dependant" 12pool, 9pool speed vs 9pool lair, 12hatch vs 12hatch into 3hatch ling allin, etc.
There are actually two exceptions to that last rule - I marked Hyun as 12pooling in this game even though I think he actually 11pooled, and I marked Peace as 9pooling in this game even though his first building was actually an extractor.
Apologies for neglecting to include VOD URLs in the data - you can still find VODs with a small amount of detective work, but that could have been avoided had I been less dumb :< If I had the opportunity to do this again I would definitely do things differently!
Hmm, this is very interesting. I think recently 12 pool has been doing better vs. 12 hatch, but it's definitely still a disadvantage. 9 pool vs 12 pool feels the most imbalanced to me when I play, but with progamer ling and muta micro, players have kept it pretty close.
I'm curious what good players think of 11pool vs 12hatch. Sometimes I win flat out with lings and sometimes it's not even close and I'm way behind.
On June 28 2012 10:31 nbaker wrote: Hmm, this is very interesting. I think recently 12 pool has been doing better vs. 12 hatch, but it's definitely still a disadvantage. 9 pool vs 12 pool feels the most imbalanced to me when I play, but with progamer ling and muta micro, players have kept it pretty close.
I'm curious what good players think of 11pool vs 12hatch. Sometimes I win flat out with lings and sometimes it's not even close and I'm way behind.
I'm not particularly good (C zerg), and I tried 11pool as an actual opening, and although it's technically "safe", it doesn't allow you to attack a person going for 12 hatch, and doesn't let you match the aggression of a 9pool build, which is particularly tricky if you're going 11pool as means of expanding.
Instead of an expand build, you could be going for a fast tech build, but it seems like Overpool and 12pool are better suited for 1-base 2-hatchery play.
Don't know entirely for sure, though! Just giving some thought to it based on the games I've played with it so far.
On June 28 2012 10:43 endy wrote: Congrats for 10000th !
On June 28 2012 13:26 FlaShFTW wrote: congratz on 10000!!!
thanks : D
On June 28 2012 16:32 hacklebeast wrote: i'm surprised that there were that many overgases. Do the stats include mirrors?
I was too! My intuition is that overgas is fairly map dependant (used 22% of the time on 2 player maps, 9.5% of the time on 3 player maps, 12% on the time on 4 player maps) and since most of these games are from proleague where ZvZ's are more likely to be on certain (zerg favored) maps, maps where overgas is relatively strong loom large in the data. Anecdotally, while collecting the data I felt like pros favored overgas on Alternative (where 29 of 94 matches were ZvZ).
Mirrors are in there but I took them out when presenting matchup data above because it looked silly to say "hey, did you know that overgas is 9-9 vs overgas? fascinating!" Anyways here are the mirrors:
As someone who loves ZvZ, thank you very much for this, it's really interesting. Not really sure what to conclude from it, apart from the fact that the rock paper scissors affirmation seems really overblown =)
I'd also be curious to find out how long each of those games are, so we can eliminate games that go long enough that the opening BO matters less. I think we'll see even stronger support for the RPS nature of that stage in the game. Also it would be interesting to see Jaedong's stats during his JvZ reign of terror and how much those games may have affected these results (if this goes back that far)
On June 29 2012 01:55 Sayle wrote: Nice work. Makes me wonder why nobody bothered to do it before.
Well there is some work associated with setting yourself up to use data usefully (if I could do it again I would use a database instead of writing a bunch of silly python <__<;; ), but I think the biggest thing is that collecting data is pretty dull. 208 games felt like a ton, but it still wasn't enough to give the sample sizes you'd like.
On June 29 2012 01:07 Shiladie wrote: I'd also be curious to find out how long each of those games are, so we can eliminate games that go long enough that the opening BO matters less.
Although I think build orders can still matter in longer games, tracking game length definitely seems like something worth doing. Practically it might be difficult though - iirc when I started watching BW they didn't have the ellapsed time displayed like they do now.
I think we'll see even stronger support for the RPS nature of that stage in the game.
That would be entirely unsurprising given the way certain matchups tend to play out (eg 9p laughing at 12h, 12h overpowering 12p with lings right before mutas).
Also it would be interesting to see Jaedong's stats during his JvZ reign of terror and how much those games may have affected these results (if this goes back that far)
My guess is that my data doesn't go back that far, but that would definitely be interesting.
On June 29 2012 02:17 Bakuryu wrote: thx for the data, makes me wonder why they play 9p so rarely (could be alternative...)
9p was chosen 16.4% / 22.6% / 20.3 % of the time on 2 / 3 / 4 player maps respectively so... I wish I had done this better so we could look at splits by individual maps rather than just number of players for the map :<
I think the large number of 12 h mirrors (compared to total 12 h v. total 12p) indicates there are particular maps where it is viewed as better (electric circuit, for instance, comes to mind).
Awesome work nice one! The data from 2 player maps is much more valuable than 3 and 4 player maps because overlord scouting is not recorded in the data and players know where to send lings.
OK so on to the data. In the Other things spoiler tag you have:
Map Number Frequencies 2 - 70 So 70 games were played on 2 player maps in your sample.
So 12 hatch beat 12 pool 8-5 12 pool beat 9 pool 7-1 9 pool beat 12 hatch 6-2
What does all this mean. Well unfortunately it means nothing. The 12 hatch might have beat the 12 pool everytime on one map and lost 5 times on another map.
Maps and spawn positions dictate build orders and these dictate the winner in broodwar! When doing statistics on broodwar, always separate data by the map then by spawn position. Only then can you start to analyze the data.
So as you can see I would personally group the data primarily by the map it was played on. Also I would only use 2 player maps and I would record where each player spawned (yes even on 2 player maps, and especially in zvz). If I were to do 3 or 4 player maps, I would only use games where both players scouted first time with overlords (or both players scouted second etc), and I would indicate which starting positions each player was in.
How about you though Crunchums? You said you would also do things differently if you were to do it again.
The classical rock-paper-scissors element to ZvZ started existed prior to modern muta micro and was most prominent with early maps like Lost Temple, which has relatively short rush timings compared to most modern maps. With shorter rush distances, 9p > 12h becomes even more pronounced, meanwhile without modern muta micro, 12h > 12p and especially 12p > 9p become more pronounced.
And I always thought overgas was more of a counter to overpool anyway. Lately it seems overpool is out of fashion, but for a long time it was a staple of ZvZ, and probably the most common build.
I keep wanting to make a post in this thread but then have to delete it haha.
I think it's undeniable that in all matchups in BW build orders can give player an advantage. Furthermore, a player who is better than his or her opponent will make up for a disadvantage in build order the longer the game goes on, the more decisions he or she is able to make that are better than his or her opponent's. Since ZvZ is short, you might conclude that that means that the advantage is going to be stronger since there is less time to overcome it, HOWEVER, I believe that within those short ZvZs players have to make more decisions over a shorter amount of time. That takes focus and precision which is not in every players skillset (at least, not their strongest skill). A player like Jaedong or Hydra or any other ZvZer with a 60% + record in ZvZ achieves this with superior ling micro and decisions and knowledge about ZvZ. And that record isn't particularly less pronounced than any other record in any other matchup. So what I am trying to say is that the better player is still winning a fair amount of the time in ZvZ, and perhaps that better player is what we'd call the 33% (although admitedly it is very easy to lose a ZvZ just from one or two mistakes, which is one reason people begin to feel the matchup is volitile—but that has nothing to do with the build orders).
ty for the stats. I think you should have included weighting for when a player was simply favoured to win in ZvZ. I also don't know if you chose the best season to gather stats, since by this time so many teams were disbanding and there were a lot of things to hurt players skills. It's difficult to read into this data but I'm still glad you made the effort to collect it. IMO rock paper sissors proof would look closer to 90% + wins in build order 'counters' Where this isn't much more extreme than someone getting away with 14 nex vs a cautious player.
I think since ZvZ is so much about being 'in the zone' it would be interesting to look at the streaks players go on. When I just look briefly over a few profiles, I often see either a lot of wins in a row or a lot of losses. Especially noticable with Hydra, whose record is actually only 55% even tho there are times when we have thought his ZvZ was nearly unbeatable.
Although I agree with most of those remarks, rock-paper-scissors proof would not necessarily be 90+%. Not unless you're doing some sort of advanced statistical analysis factoring in weighting based on skill and maps being played.
There is no viable build order that is an auto-loss even against its "hard counter." Even if we look at 4 pool vs 14cc, if the Terran has superior SCV control he can win. Even among progamers, there is a clear and vast difference between someone like Jaedong and your "average" progamer. It's like comparing the sun and the moon.
On June 30 2012 08:55 Miwyfe wrote: Awesome work nice one! The data from 2 player maps is much more valuable than 3 and 4 player maps because overlord scouting is not recorded in the data and players know where to send lings.
What does all this mean. Well unfortunately it means nothing. The 12 hatch might have beat the 12 pool everytime on one map and lost 5 times on another map.
Maps and spawn positions dictate build orders and these dictate the winner in broodwar! When doing statistics on broodwar, always separate data by the map then by spawn position. Only then can you start to analyze the data.
So as you can see I would personally group the data primarily by the map it was played on. Also I would only use 2 player maps and I would record where each player spawned (yes even on 2 player maps, and especially in zvz). If I were to do 3 or 4 player maps, I would only use games where both players scouted first time with overlords (or both players scouted second etc), and I would indicate which starting positions each player was in.
How about you though Crunchums? You said you would also do things differently if you were to do it again.
Data from 2 player maps is definitely more useful if what you are are interested in is some platonic ideal of how certain builds fare against each other. But if what you are interested in is how to win games, it is useful to about games like this one, and silly to fetishize a specific subset of the data (games where both players OL scout each other).
I didn't track things like spawn positions / OL scouting because doing so would have been more work. But I also believe that spawn positions would only be useful with some thinking*, and that if I was going to track OL scouting I'm not exactly sure how I would do it as there are actually a lot of different things a player can do with their first two overlords.
*Consider the in the following set of spawn positions {bottom left vs bottom right on Circuit Breaker, top left vs bottom right on Fighting Spirit, bottom right vs top right on Circuit Breaker, bottom left vs bottom right on La Mancha, and bottom right vs top right on Fighting Spirit} the last two are the only ones that are analogous.
On July 01 2012 00:24 Mortality wrote: Lately it seems overpool is out of fashion, but for a long time it was a staple of ZvZ, and probably the most common build.
My BW experience overlapped with some of that time, but the data's doesn't.
On July 01 2012 20:56 Chef wrote: ty for the stats. I think you should have included weighting for when a player was simply favoured to win in ZvZ. I also don't know if you chose the best season to gather stats, since by this time so many teams were disbanding and there were a lot of things to hurt players skills. It's difficult to read into this data but I'm still glad you made the effort to collect it. IMO rock paper sissors proof would look closer to 90% + wins in build order 'counters' Where this isn't much more extreme than someone getting away with 14 nex vs a cautious player.
Such a weighting would be possible if you had a lot of data, and would be useful and cool. Like maybe If 12h > 12p and 9p > 12h were both at 66% you could look at the weights to determine which matchup was harder to win from the side of the unfavored build. Or maybe you could look at how good each player is and be like daaaaaaamn player X is good or lol player Y is lucky.
I agree that games played while players were also practicing SC2 are suboptimal data points.
On July 03 2012 07:10 ForTenPoints wrote: I'm curious as to what a Chi-Square test or something similar will show about BO distribution for 2 vs 3 vs 4 player maps.
I don't know how to do one, but the data is there if you wanted to.
Yeah cool, I think we both agree then that 2 player maps are best for stats analysis. Thats good. Also a little note about the game you linked of Jaedong vs Great on Circuit Breakers. The game illustrates my point perfectly. JD went for early aggression, but scouts wrong direction with the overlord, then goes cross postion with his lings and finds an empty main. Then he loses the game to an econ build. What Im saying is, this thread brings up the (false) idea about coinflip build orders. However, on 4 player maps, the real coinflip (if I may be so bold to use the term) is the overlord scout direction.
Im going to give another example (hypothetical) of how its not silly to [concentrate] on specifics of the data. Consider PvT on Fighting Spirit. My theory is that Terran wins everytime he spawns behind the Protoss. Example P@1oclcock and T@7oclock. However, Protoss wins everytime he spawns behind the Terran. Example, P@7oclock and T@1oclock. Lets say I then look at every game and find it to be 90 percent true. However the winrate of PvT is 50%. Does this mean PvT is balanced on Fighting Spirit or does it mean Terran has unbeatable advantage in one spawn and Protoss has unbeatable advantage in another spawn?
Edit: Also I dont blame you at all for not bothering to record overlord scouting and spawns etc, indeed it is alot more work. The problem is I truely dont think the results mean anything without. The reason Im saying it is because I want everyone to understand better for future stats gathering. So yeah, if you are a person who is about to go through a load of vods and gather information, please separate the data primarily by map and concentrate on 2 player maps only. If you use 3 and 4 player maps, separate the data into spawn position.
On 2 player maps, "optimal" build order choices are determined almost entirely by OL scouting time and path. Like it or not, Starcraft is a game of calculated risk taking, so this scenario is not accurately representative of ZvZ in general, nor the effectiveness of the builds in question.
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Ha! After 15 mins searching I found the thread I commented on in 2008 where flag (is that the flag from the flag test in TSL??) did game theory to find how to open ZvZ, given certain winning probabilities. His problem was that he had to guess the winning probabilities for each matchup (opener vs opener), which of course made his result a lot less reliable. Now that you have some measured numbers, you should plug your statistics into his calculation, and you will mathematically calculate how often you should do each opening.
Another important thing is when the game was played. Games played near the start of a maps life cycle are using builds that are less refined than later on in the season. So its good if data is recorded in chronological order, and if results can be displayed over time.
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Be more than happy to load up BW and show you first hand if you want to test it. You'd be shocked with the results
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Be more than happy to load up BW and show you first hand if you want to test it. You'd be shocked with the results
Bo11, every game I 12h and you do your build, play on some non-crazy 2 player map? My one question is how good you are - I'm not going to be shocked at the results if you are like B or something because I am max D+ and haven't played in ages. If you are better than me would you be willing to play against a different zerg who is closer to your skill level instead of me?
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Be more than happy to load up BW and show you first hand if you want to test it. You'd be shocked with the results
Bo11, every game I 12h and you do your build, play on some non-crazy 2 player map? My one question is how good you are - I'm not going to be shocked at the results if you are like B or something because I am max D+ and haven't played in ages. If you are better than me would you be willing to play against a different zerg who is closer to your skill level instead of me?
I haven't touched BW since 2008 and left off with B rank when I stopped playing.
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Be more than happy to load up BW and show you first hand if you want to test it. You'd be shocked with the results
Bo11, every game I 12h and you do your build, play on some non-crazy 2 player map? My one question is how good you are - I'm not going to be shocked at the results if you are like B or something because I am max D+ and haven't played in ages. If you are better than me would you be willing to play against a different zerg who is closer to your skill level instead of me?
I haven't touched BW since 2008 and left off with B rank when I stopped playing.
I'm afraid all we will test then is much bw skills you lose in 4 years... :/
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Be more than happy to load up BW and show you first hand if you want to test it. You'd be shocked with the results
Bo11, every game I 12h and you do your build, play on some non-crazy 2 player map? My one question is how good you are - I'm not going to be shocked at the results if you are like B or something because I am max D+ and haven't played in ages. If you are better than me would you be willing to play against a different zerg who is closer to your skill level instead of me?
I haven't touched BW since 2008 and left off with B rank when I stopped playing.
I'm afraid all we will test then is much bw skills you lose in 4 years... :/
Glad you think that like a random elitist who isn't skilled or has little skill. Pretty sure if I've been playing SC2 it remains the same as long as I changed hotkeys over from what BW was. Only difference is the luck factor and the hard counter all-ins.
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Be more than happy to load up BW and show you first hand if you want to test it. You'd be shocked with the results
Bo11, every game I 12h and you do your build, play on some non-crazy 2 player map? My one question is how good you are - I'm not going to be shocked at the results if you are like B or something because I am max D+ and haven't played in ages. If you are better than me would you be willing to play against a different zerg who is closer to your skill level instead of me?
I haven't touched BW since 2008 and left off with B rank when I stopped playing.
I'm afraid all we will test then is much bw skills you lose in 4 years... :/
Glad you think that like a random elitist who isn't skilled or has little skill. Pretty sure if I've been playing SC2 it remains the same as long as I changed hotkeys over from what BW was. Only difference is the luck factor and the hard counter all-ins.
wut
No need for that tone, I meant no offence at all. I'll gladly admit that I sucked at sc:bw (solid D at icc) and suck equally at sc2 (barely diamond). I just thought that not playing a game for 4 years make you get a bit out of touch (specially at a high level like you), but I don't mind being proven wrong. Sorry about that.
Apart from the hotkeys and general mechenics, I think I remember pros that have taken brakes complain mainly that they lost their sense of timing when they got back. Maybe you got used to the sc2 timings, and would need some time to relearn the bw timings? I dont know, what do you think.
Anyways, it wouldn't be much useful for getting any reliable statistics. Would need a lot of different players for that.
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Be more than happy to load up BW and show you first hand if you want to test it. You'd be shocked with the results
Bo11, every game I 12h and you do your build, play on some non-crazy 2 player map? My one question is how good you are - I'm not going to be shocked at the results if you are like B or something because I am max D+ and haven't played in ages. If you are better than me would you be willing to play against a different zerg who is closer to your skill level instead of me?
I haven't touched BW since 2008 and left off with B rank when I stopped playing.
So yeah; you will probably curbstomp me regardless of builds. I am still interested in playing though; it will probably be fun.
Very nice post. I've considered doing this before, but it's so much work, so I'm impressed you went to the trouble.
The interesting thing to me about this is that it indicates that at the pro level, 9p crushes 12h (not a surprise), and is too close to call against every other build (definitely a surprise vs 12p!). So why don't pros just 9p every game?
On July 05 2012 05:56 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Test 9hatch/9pool/9ves/ol against 9pool/12pool/12hatch and see what the outcome is
That was my main ZvZ build when I played BW solely because it was a direct counter to the openings that could follow up.
That build is in the data as 9h and 10h (same thing but with extractor trick); it only shows up 4 times.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but if what you are saying is that that build has a favorable matchup with all three of 9pool/12pool/12hatch then I think you are dead wrong.
Be more than happy to load up BW and show you first hand if you want to test it. You'd be shocked with the results
Bo11, every game I 12h and you do your build, play on some non-crazy 2 player map? My one question is how good you are - I'm not going to be shocked at the results if you are like B or something because I am max D+ and haven't played in ages. If you are better than me would you be willing to play against a different zerg who is closer to your skill level instead of me?
I haven't touched BW since 2008 and left off with B rank when I stopped playing.
I'm afraid all we will test then is much bw skills you lose in 4 years... :/
Glad you think that like a random elitist who isn't skilled or has little skill. Pretty sure if I've been playing SC2 it remains the same as long as I changed hotkeys over from what BW was. Only difference is the luck factor and the hard counter all-ins.
dude you misunderstood him >_> he's treating you with respect man
On July 07 2012 03:31 blueblimp wrote: Very nice post. I've considered doing this before, but it's so much work, so I'm impressed you went to the trouble.
This.
Go, Crunchums!
And to 9hat dude, if 9hat beat all those builds, pros would use it more. The end.
Wouldnt it be interesting to do this for more games?
How did you do it? Maybe people randomly send you in their zvz games, with their account and rank. Depending on what you are able to get from the replays.
It would be nice to get that kind of data from iccup for example, where they could prolly do that.
For know id just say the sample seems to be to small.
9 hat 9pool gas/ov was Mondragon's big build in ZvZ and ZvP for a while because it fares decently well against most Zerg openings (if i remember correctly, second hatch finishes at a timing to get a larva for 8 lings instead of 6 at pool completion, so with good micro and position you're ahead against several ZvZ openings). ZvP, it raped 2gate openings, but then those went out of style with forge-expand and BISUBUILD.
It gives you a good larva count, ling speed timing is close to that of a normal 9pool.
edit: As an added thought, you have to press your larva advantage hard and this means aggressive play, if they have a ramp or an easy to defend choke then this gets easier as you can't get a favorable position.
On July 07 2012 03:31 blueblimp wrote: Very nice post. I've considered doing this before, but it's so much work, so I'm impressed you went to the trouble.
This.
Go, Crunchums!
And to 9hat dude, if 9hat beat all those builds, pros would use it more. The end.
Pros can defend 12hat vs proxy 9/9gate using only drone micro :p They're not really an accurate comparison to someone playing iCCup at a regular level.
On July 25 2012 19:20 Benrath-ScT- wrote: Wouldnt it be interesting to do this for more games?
How did you do it? Maybe people randomly send you in their zvz games, with their account and rank. Depending on what you are able to get from the replays.
It would be nice to get that kind of data from iccup for example, where they could prolly do that.
For know id just say the sample seems to be to small.
All of the data entry is manual. There might be some way to automate things using replays and BW Chart, but then you wouldn't be able to use pro games (which imo are the only data worth looking at).
If you want I can explain how other people could add more data to what I've done. Perhaps it could even be set up collaboratively via liquipedia?
On July 26 2012 02:51 Bakuryu wrote: ..... please stop talking about 999 in zvz........ thx....... i agree with Turbovolver. and the example proxy 2 gate game on colo2.... -.-
The argument being that a progamer with progamer drone and ling control will often beat a risky build with an eco build as a result, I think you missed the point. I agree that the build is outdated, but you will win games with it on iCCup.
i think your missing the point of the thread. i never said anything about your statement that progamer can beat risky builds with an eco build, nor did i say anything about 999 being outdated, nor that u cant win with it in iccup. if im not wrong then this thread here is about how progamers win with their builds in zvz, not how any possible build can be played at iccup level. i could have also talked about how awesome hydra builds are, but that wouldnt do anything good to the data presented by Crunchums. that more or less explains my 1st and 2nd sentence from my previous post. 3rd sentence is about the fact that jaedong not only won that game, he simply demolished lucifer. (so im saying that i dont like that game as an example) im sry that GEMA is blocking the video so i have to remember what happened exactly ingame, but a proxy 2 gate on colo2 is more or less self own. because of the layout of colo2, the only way for your to win (if u are p) is to directly kill his main (or z completely does not scout it and goes for drone only) if u go for his natural hatch, he will place sunken in main and simply counter your main with lings. If u block his entrance, he has 2 hatches making lings and your contain gets nowhere because he still has 2 bases (main gets defended with a sunken again). so the only way to win, is to attack the main and kill the sunk before its too late. Problem is, he can "simply" place the sunk in a good location to drone drill your early zeal easily. iirc, in the game, the sunken didnt even get that many hits by the zeal, so for us mortals, it should be possible to survive it in the same way, or am i wrong?
EPT
I'll gladly admit that I sucked at sc:bw (solid D at icc) and suck equally at sc2 (barely diamond). I just thought that not playing a game for 4 years make you get a bit out of touch (specially at a high level like you), but I don't mind being proven wrong. Sorry about that.
