Speaking as a programmer, I can say without doubt that there is no way that the programmers didn't know and consciously decide whether a cancelled hatchery would leave a patch of creep.

P00RKID

United States424 Posts

April 19 2010 04:01 GMT

#62

On April 19 2010 12:36 Funchucks wrote:

Show nested quote +

Speaking as a programmer, I can say without doubt that there is no way that the programmers didn't know and consciously decide whether a cancelled hatchery would leave a patch of creep.

I agree. I think even if it IS a bug, isn't this one of those bugs that everybody kept saying we would find and use to push the game further into a meta game? Like all those bugs in BW that gave depth to the game?

And since the crawler tumor all in might be stopped easily, it doesn't mean that there won't ever be a use for using hatcheries for proxy creep. You don't even need to have your queen leave the base in some instances.

If you hatchery cancel at those red dots outside of your base, you can spread an existing creep tumor to it.

Orpheus

United States35 Posts

April 19 2010 04:32 GMT

#63

At the 5:25 mark you saw:
1) a creep tumor at your front door
2) a queen at your front door
3) at least 1 drone at your front door

Perhaps you've never met this before so you don't know how to counter it, but now that you've seen it, the answer is obviously to make 2 bunkers, a Marauder each inside (which you had time to make), and 1 or 2 scv's each to repair while you make depots in the back (your front 2 depots will be lost, but that is fine - you will be economically ahead. Instead of queuing up 3 marauders in your barracks, you could've made bunkers, etc. in the for a back wall, load units inside to be safe. Just don't let zerglings run in, which is simple.

cartoon]x

United States606 Posts

April 19 2010 05:43 GMT

#64

what league are you in OP?

Nitron

Singapore177 Posts

April 19 2010 06:23 GMT

#65

I dont know if this is intended by blizzard to have creep when u cancel hatch, but this so called glitch is not the issue. The person basically did a tower rush on you and u need bunkers(can salvage for 100%) and marauders in them. While doing this u could send a few reapers to his main and destroy his drones

Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo

Germany2959 Posts

April 19 2010 07:38 GMT

#66

Lol at the people thinking that such a thing is immediately a glitch or bug.
As already explained, how the hack is a programmer supposed to accidently put some some (rather more than just some in this case) lines of code into a script? Use your brain, it's most likely something that was intended. Whether or not the programmers foresaw this way ( I won't call it abuse) of using that feature is another thing. But that's seriously neither a glitch nor bug.

On topic:
It's quite annoying to see all these imba threads being put up that don't follow the new forum rules and are in fact pretty dumb. Plat league - 8 replays. That'll save everyone of us a whole bunch of time
explaining obvious stuff...

FuryX

Australia495 Posts

April 19 2010 07:56 GMT

#67

Here is the cheese in action, lol my first try, was getting tired of dam walling in by T

tenpromicro

United States119 Posts

April 19 2010 08:04 GMT

#68

lol that guy had such good manners.. i always rage if i lose to dumb cheese. i tried this strat out in a bunch of customs today vs differetn ppl and its really a matter of how well the guy scouts.. also if he dindt go reapers it could have ended differently bc reapers are paper

kenhennen

29 Posts

April 19 2010 09:38 GMT

#69

what really does puzzle me is the statement that there's a bunch of zerg players going for this build, since the poster lost 5 times to it in one day.
will try this for fun, but would expect opponents to just stop it. literally, whatever units they have would work - if they build any army at all. marauders in replay above would deny spore crawlers; a couple marines would scout/kill drones and with reinforcements - queen; not to mention marauders, tanks and banshees

Zzoram

Canada7115 Posts

April 19 2010 09:50 GMT

#70

On April 19 2010 16:56 FuryX wrote:
Here is the cheese in action, lol my first try, was getting tired of dam walling in by T

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OELpx8wt9ow

This was clearly not an optimized attempt. Your minerals were over 1200 at one point before you started your proxy hatch. Instead of going 15 pool, you should try again with 12 pool or even 10 pool and see how early you can do it while still able to afford some Zerglings for defense.

zomgzergrush

United States923 Posts

April 19 2010 09:53 GMT

#71

On April 19 2010 16:56 FuryX wrote:
Here is the cheese in action, lol my first try, was getting tired of dam walling in by T

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OELpx8wt9ow

I like it how he actually went reapers, of which waltzed right by those building spine crawlers. Those reapers could have cleaned it all up so easily before they even finished.

Not to mention the flimsy little tumor can easily be killed with scans and then its GG for all 3 spine crawlers.

caution.slip

United States775 Posts

April 19 2010 10:03 GMT

#72

To everyone stating whether it was intended or not for hatcheries to leave creep when they're created:

It is obvious that the programmers wrote the code in such a fashion that when spawning a hatchery, creep is also spawned. However this could very be an unintended consequence of the way they made starcraft 2.

SC2 zerg is unique from SC1 zerg. Zerg buildings in SC2 "burn down" when they are removed from creep. Theres probably just one algorithm that checks this. If there is no creep under a zerg building, start removing life. This would also include hatcheries, so they just made the hatchery come with creep, so it doesn't start "burning" as it builds

It's clever use of game mechanics, but I wouldn't go as far to say that the programmers intended for cancelled hatcheries to leave behind creep that can then be abused with creep tumors. I seriously doubt a programmer was thinking "Okay we'll make the hatch spawn with creep so it can be cancelled and then a creep tumor can be put on it, leading to interesting offensive spine crawlers."

As for the build itsself, its basically identical to an offensive proxy hatch build, only it comes quicker because you don't have to wait for the hatchery to finish before you start building sunkens

Speaking as a programmer, I can say without doubt that there is no way that the programmers didn't know and consciously decide whether a cancelled hatchery would leave a patch of creep.

That statement is also bullshit. Just because its in the game means the programmer decided it would be that way? Programmers overlook things all the time, thats why there's beta testing.

zomgzergrush

United States923 Posts

April 19 2010 10:12 GMT

#73

On April 19 2010 19:03 caution.slip wrote:
To everyone stating whether it was intended or not for hatcheries to leave creep when they're created:

It is obvious that the programmers wrote the code in such a fashion that when spawning a hatchery, creep is also spawned. However this could very be an unintended consequence of the way they made starcraft 2.

SC2 zerg is unique from SC1 zerg. Zerg buildings in SC2 "burn down" when they are removed from creep. Theres probably just one algorithm that checks this. If there is no creep under a zerg building, start removing life. This would also include hatcheries, so they just made the hatchery come with creep, so it doesn't start "burning" as it builds

It's clever use of game mechanics, but I wouldn't go as far to say that the programmers intended for cancelled hatcheries to leave behind creep that can then be abused with creep tumors. I seriously doubt a programmer was thinking "Okay we'll make the hatch spawn with creep so it can be cancelled and then a creep tumor can be put on it, leading to interesting offensive spine crawlers."

As for the build itsself, its basically identical to an offensive proxy hatch build, only it comes quicker because you don't have to wait for the hatchery to finish before you start building sunkens

Show nested quote +

That statement is also bullshit. Just because its in the game means the programmer decided it would be that way? Programmers overlook things all the time, thats why there's beta testing.

nailed it on the nose there, that's exactly what I was about to edit into my post! Also I'd like to point out, the creep behavior is more likely than not built into the engine, i.e. the way it degrades.

Bottom line is, theres no reason that T's should ever die to this. I can't think of one physically viable scenario where T is completely screwed and cannot do anything to stop this.

Fractal

Namibia11 Posts

April 19 2010 13:36 GMT

#74

LLLLOOOOLLLL

can't wait to try this one out haahaha

guitarizt

United States1492 Posts

April 19 2010 14:03 GMT

#75

lol @ impossible to counter. If this works against any plat terr I would be super surprised.

Grend

1600 Posts

April 19 2010 14:41 GMT

#76

Yeah the impossible to counter part is kind of silly. You ought to have like 100+ plat replays or something to make such an ambitious claim. There is a thread dedicated to this strategy already as well so I for one do not see the point in letting this thread stay open.