|
I remember using a very similar build way back in the beta/early WoL. You'd open 2 gate zealot into expansion, however I always tried a lame attempt at a Phoenix DT follow up with not so good results.
It is quite fun to play these types of builds though.
Seems quite common today that zergs go speedling -> hydra -> hydra/swarmhost/corruptor, which makes me afraid to use these types of builds anymore.
On December 06 2014 08:42 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
7-2 so far on #dreampool
i lost on metal.. that should be obvious.. and akilon.. but it was late game when i lost.
the 7 wins weren't close.. just sayin'.. pretty viable at my level..
ranked top 5 dia currently.
Speaking of statistics, I don't think it is a good way of proving viability of a build.
This season I have used the the following build for my PvZ:
1. Go the fastest Dark Shrine you can (Get 1 stalker to keep overlords out)
2. Add 2 more gates (3 total)
3. Get your expansion
4. Warp in 3 DTs
5. Select DTs, right click enemy hatchery
6. Collect win
Variation 1 if 6 is not true:
+ Show Spoiler +
6a. Cancel nexus
7a. Build 2 more gates (5 total)
8a. Zealot Sentry all in
Variation 2 if 6 is not true:
+ Show Spoiler +
6b. Get Forge -> Chrono +1 attack
7b. Get robo -> Chrono immortals
8b Start charge
9b. Chargelot, immortal, archon all in of 7 gates.
Does it sound like a viable build? Nope. but here are my Protoss stats if interested:
+ Show Spoiler +
Obscure builds tend to do well on the ladder, especially in PvZ. As long as you have a plan anything that is early game reliant seems to work.
I think it comes down to the reasons why you play the game, is it just for fun and to do crazy stuff, if so anything is viable.
Or is it to get better at the game?
The big difference I feel is that if you play to actually get better, then you probably do not want to play builds that rely solely on the fact that your opponent doesn't know how to respond, for example like the good old DT build I use.
I hope more people starts using fun builds to spice things up!
|
I used to do something similar for a while in masters. I would move out with 4 zealots and 1 at the wall, when the zealots are half way across the map I would scout the natural with a hidden probe to gauge the response and would either go home or attack and sac the zealots in exchange for a late over-reaction or a queen and some drone mining time, etc.
Then I would either start a nexus at home or tech to stargate (I've done it for a long time, so went through a lot of variations.)
I think intelligent reaction from the zerg sets you squarely behind. One cool thing you can do though to try and put on more pressure and avoid having your zealots picked off the way Fabled said they would is chrono the first zealot, which causes your 2 gateways to build zealots synchronously, so that they can travel in pairs and then you can move out earlier.
|
I feel like win rates are a good way to measure if a build is successful.
I mean.. if I lost 68% of the time you feel like that shows it's not successful?
at the minimum i guess you could say it's viable if it gets you ahead or at least even when it hits mid-game.... and if you lose past that point it's not the openers fault.. which i could agree with.
At my level I feel like it does just that.
Also.. I have played plenty of diamond friends who know exactly what I do in PvZ.. and they still don't get a substantial lead.
yes.. your natural is delayed.. but so is their 3rd.. and they're sacking larva and resources very early to not take damage.. it's a very thin line zergs have to walk.. and I don't personally feel like zergs come out as ahead (if at all) as most of you are thinking
One cool thing you can do though to try and put on more pressure and avoid having your zealots picked off the way Fabled said ]
this isn't a problem of this build.. this is a problem of Fabled's build
but with my build the zealots come out just as you suggest.. 2 by 2 for the final 4.. i just disagree with sending them. It's easier to micro against and kill 1 or 2 zealots than it is 5.
|
On December 08 2014 01:12 JulDraGoN wrote:
Obscure builds tend to do well on the ladder, especially in PvZ. As long as you have a plan anything that is early game reliant seems to work.
This, this, 1000x this.
|
On December 08 2014 07:12 Defenestrator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2014 01:12 JulDraGoN wrote:
Obscure builds tend to do well on the ladder, especially in PvZ. As long as you have a plan anything that is early game reliant seems to work.
This, this, 1000x this.
I agree with this, for every race.
|
On December 08 2014 02:44 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
I feel like win rates are a good way to measure if a build is successful.
I mean.. if I lost 68% of the time you feel like that shows it's not successful?
It depends who you're playing against. Obscure PvZ builds have a place, because it will push you ahead against a zerg who overreacts or underreacts. But a proper reaction will put you behind.
Winrates on their own mean nothing, I could have a 100% winrate just by four-gating in every match up until diamond or so.
We're simply telling you that this build will end up setting you behind. The pooling of zealots is something that will definitely set you back. Pooling zealots on a 2 gate build means that the zerg can hover their overlord on top of your gateways and see if anything is being produced, which means that they always know exactly how many zealots you have coming.
The weakness of all 2 gate zealot aggression builds is that as aggressor you never know ahead of time whether you should continue committing to zealots or not. By limiting yourself to building a certain limited amount of them (such as 3 or 4 or 5 or 7,) you are basically saying to the zerg "Here, I'm going to build x amount of zealots, you will see how many I build ahead of time, if you react well, you WILL end up being significantly ahead, the ball is in your court."
That's not a good mindset to go into a PvZ with because the more certainty you give a zerg in the early stages of the game the longer it will take you to catch up to him economically.
at the minimum i guess you could say it's viable if it gets you ahead or at least even when it hits mid-game.... and if you lose past that point it's not the openers fault.. which i could agree with.
At my level I feel like it does just that.
That's what we're saying it won't get you even or ahead against a good reaction, it can't possibly do so because it is too easily telegraphed.
Also.. I have played plenty of diamond friends who know exactly what I do in PvZ.. and they still don't get a substantial lead.
Then they're not asking the right question. They should be asking "How can I invest as little resources as late as possible in order to be able to kill 5 zealots just in time to reach my base if I know exactly when they leave. That's a very easy question for a zerg to answer. One annoying thing they can do is brings 2 zerglings after your zealots leave and camp your natural so that you can't get it until after you get a stalker or mothership core and that's an investment of only 1 larva and 50 minerals.
yes.. your natural is delayed.. but so is their 3rd.. and they're sacking larva and resources very early to not take damage.. it's a very thin line zergs have to walk.. and I don't personally feel like zergs come out as ahead (if at all) as most of you are thinking
Not very early, you're pooling zealots. They will get an overlord on top of your 2 gateways as you move out and they will know everything about your gas and cybernetics timings.
this isn't a problem of this build.. this is a problem of Fabled's build
but with my build the zealots come out just as you suggest.. 2 by 2 for the final 4.. i just disagree with sending them. It's easier to micro against and kill 1 or 2 zealots than it is 5.
Well the reason fabled brought up the possibility of getting your zealots picked off is because POOLING gives your opponent a huge advantage if he is able to quickly answer the question of "how do I kill 5 zealots." By pooling your zealots you're giving your opponent time to build drones out of 2 hatcheries and not have to react as early.
By sending zealots earlier you're forcing your opponent to react earlier.
If you move out with the first 2 zealots your opponent will have to ask himself 2 questions:
1) How do I deal with 2 zealots by investing as little as possible.
2) How do I deal with 5 zealots by investing as little as possible after having already prepared for 2 zealots earlier.
Clearly this puts the zerg in a more difficult situation than simply skipping to step 2 immediately without the 5 zealots arriving any earlier than they would have had they left the base 2 at a time.
|
On December 08 2014 02:44 Ignorant prodigy wrote:I feel like win rates are a good way to measure if a build is successful. I mean.. if I lost 68% of the time you feel like that shows it's not successful? at the minimum i guess you could say it's viable if it gets you ahead or at least even when it hits mid-game.... and if you lose past that point it's not the openers fault.. which i could agree with. At my level I feel like it does just that. Also.. I have played plenty of diamond friends who know exactly what I do in PvZ.. and they still don't get a substantial lead. yes.. your natural is delayed.. but so is their 3rd.. and they're sacking larva and resources very early to not take damage.. it's a very thin line zergs have to walk.. and I don't personally feel like zergs come out as ahead (if at all) as most of you are thinking Show nested quote +One cool thing you can do though to try and put on more pressure and avoid having your zealots picked off the way Fabled said ] this isn't a problem of this build.. this is a problem of Fabled's build but with my build the zealots come out just as you suggest.. 2 by 2 for the final 4.. i just disagree with sending them. It's easier to micro against and kill 1 or 2 zealots than it is 5.
There are no benefits though of not sending them. You're saying it's "easier" but by being "easier" it defeats the entire purpose of putting on aggression early on and trying to punish them. You don't make any valid points on why not to at least try to pressure.
Both builds accomplish the same thing of having 5 zealots at the enemy (well, in your case you choose to cut at 5). The only difference is yours doesn't force the zerg at any point to pull drones or drag down queens off creep. For the purpose of being safe... in a build that's meant to be more aggressive than typical. That's the point I'm trying to make.
|
One annoying thing they can do is brings 2 zerglings after your zealots leave and camp your natural so that you can't get it until after you get a stalker or mothership core and that's an investment of only 1 larva and 50 minerals.
2 lings does jack squat vs 5 zealots...????
you realize my natural nexus is going down right as the zealots leave the base right? did you watch any of the vods? I'm not ever waiting for a stalker or msc to kill 2 lings.. sorry 2 lings are not ever delaying my natural with this build.. in 60+ games of this build I have never not once got my natural up.. the VAST majority of zergs see the 2 gates and watch the zealots leave my base... yet i magically win 68% or more of my games.. I'm not that good and playing from behind I promise you
you guys can argue sending the zealots earlier till your face is blue.. I simply disagree with your reasoning
|
On December 08 2014 14:20 Ignorant prodigy wrote:Show nested quote +
One annoying thing they can do is brings 2 zerglings after your zealots leave and camp your natural so that you can't get it until after you get a stalker or mothership core and that's an investment of only 1 larva and 50 minerals.
2 lings does jack squat vs 5 zealots...???? you realize my natural nexus is going down right as the zealots leave the base right? did you watch any of the vods? I'm not ever waiting for a stalker or msc to kill 2 lings.. sorry 2 lings are not ever delaying my natural with this build.. in 60+ games of this build I have never not once got my natural up.. the VAST majority of zergs see the 2 gates and watch the zealots leave my base... yet i magically win 68% or more of my games.. I'm not that good and playing from behind I promise you you guys can argue sending the zealots earlier till your face is blue.. I simply disagree with your reasoning
So you catch 2 lings with 5 zealots? Sounds like a good use of your pooled up zealots...
Quite frankly, apparently the vast majority of zergs you're playing suck. Play against Fabled or someone else who plays zerg and you'll see that you fall far behind with no feats of control or micro from your opponent. Just an intelligent response.
|
yes.. thats it.. the only explanation is more than half of the diamond zergs i play suck... eureka
obviously the only way to make this right.. is i'd have to play someone on here who knows exactly how to play against it and know the exact build order to prove it's a build worth using.. riiiight
|
On December 08 2014 14:50 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
yes.. thats it.. the only explanation is more than half of the diamond zergs i play suck... eureka
obviously the only way to make this right.. is i'd have to play someone on here who knows exactly how to play against it and know the exact build order to prove it's a build worth using.. riiiight
I'm not saying it's not a build worth using... I'm saying that it's a build that fully puts the ball in zerg's court for whether or not you end up ahead, and the near worst case scenario for you which sets the zerg squarely ahead isn't achieved with some incredible feats of zerg micro, but simply by making the right units at the right time.
edit: it's up to you to decide whether it's worth using. I'm just warning you what you're gonna run in against when you play against more experienced zerg
|
name an aggressive build that doesnt require your opponent to make the right units at the right time?
I mean.. 1 base blink builds still exists at the pro level.. yet if scouted and prepared for people still do it... are you going to hop into those build threads and do your public service too?
|
On December 08 2014 14:50 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
yes.. thats it.. the only explanation is more than half of the diamond zergs i play suck... eureka
obviously the only way to make this right.. is i'd have to play someone on here who knows exactly how to play against it and know the exact build order to prove it's a build worth using.. riiiight
Well, I mean... yeah...
The point I've made is you're completely relying on someone having no idea what they're actually seeing. Your build falls flat on its face vs. anyone that knows what they're doing (most Diamond players do not).
You're sooo insanely far behind, you can't do anything vs a proper response AND you let yourself get scouted. It's not even a cheese that hides anything. At least with a pressure build it doesn't matter if they scout you and know how to respond, you can arguably try to get something done (still not well).
You're just trying an outdated build and playing it suboptimally at that. You're relying on opponents botching a response that they've scouted, and that's the problem.
|
it's a diamond ladder build...which was clearly stated
|
On December 08 2014 15:19 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
it's a diamond ladder build...which was clearly stated
Which means nothing in itself. I could pull out 20 different builds that work in Diamond. When pointing out a crucial flaw, you just dig your head in the hand and say "nahhhh" and "clearly this build DOES work."
|
On December 08 2014 15:09 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
name an aggressive build that doesnt require your opponent to make the right units at the right time?
I mean.. 1 base blink builds still exists at the pro level.. yet if scouted and prepared for people still do it... are you going to hop into those build threads and do your public service too?
Other aggressive builds that are used have enough nuance in them that you can expect your opponent to miss something or not scout or to miscontrol or you get some kind of positional advantage such as denying creep, etc.
Your build literally consists of 5 zealots which can't even hold map control because if they are still in the middle of the map when your opponent's ling speed finishes he can either surround and kill your zealots or defend and run-by at the same time.
Your build can not realistically rely on not being scouted. When it gets scouted it gets scouted COMPLETELY, because double gate and zealots means delayed gas and cyber which means that the overlord can camp your gateways and constantly check for more production, so he knows EXACTLY how many zealots are coming.
if you think this game is so simple that you can build 5 units early on in the game, with no attempt to hide them or your future tech from your opponent and somehow force enough of a reaction in order to get consistently ahead, then you're mistaken. The game isn't that easy. If your build actually did what you claim it does literally everybody would use it.
edit:
"Diamond build." What does that even mean? This would be like me creating a thread on drone rushing and claiming unironically that it's a legitimate build.
Sure, it's "legitimate," but it doesn't do a lot of the things that you claim it does and that's what I'm pointing out.
|
what did i claim it does exactly?
|
I can't design a build for players in masters or GM because I am not masters or GM.. I was just stating.. like a broken record.. that according to my record.. and the examples ive shown.. it works at diamond level..
i'm not sure what you want me to say?
|
On November 14 2014 02:36 DinoMight wrote:
As a fellow member of team NEFN I can confirm that this build works.
It sounds dumb.
As hell.
But it works.
i refer to this post..
|
You've claimed that it sets you even or ahead repeatedly. On some occasions you've appended it with "at my level." You also said that the line that zergs have to walk to defend successfully is pretty thin, which is a vague statement that's hard to contradict absolutely, but it should be noted hat this "thin line," is significantly thicker than that for most aggressive builds used in the current meta.
I don't believe that "at my level" is a particularly sound footnote, especially in this case. It may be sound if the build required godlike micro in order to hold successfully. For example someone can say "ZvT, baneling-ling is really strong at my level," because it's notoriously difficult to effectively split bio and lower level players simply don't have the necessary micro. Strategically, however to say something works "at my level" is kind of silly, especially when it requires a single tier of guaranteed scouting and response. Because of this a player who is actually worse than diamond due to some insight, or even luck could respond in a way that will set him ahead, because such responses are in no way impressive feats of skill. So "at my level" really gets translated to "if the person doesn't know how to react to it" which is a footnote that very well deserves a follow-up footnote that if your opponent DOES know how to react to it you will be convincingly behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Am8Mwm2.png)
