|
On December 03 2010 10:18 Mephs wrote:
it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny.
He's just trying to show that 14 hatch isn't the only viable build you can do that has a decent economy. 14 hatch is still a great build, but 11 overpool has clearly been demonstrated to be not only the most economical of the safe builds, but one of the safest of the safe builds, as it pools earlier. I like to experiment around with lots of builds, but this is the build I have always gone back to over the past few months, as it is an all-around stable build.
|
On December 03 2010 10:18 Mephs wrote:
it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny.
You're wrong. The build is in no way "the same" as 14 hatch 15 pool. It offers considerably more options for early aggression if desired; it is much easier to hold against bunker/cannon rush attempts, etc.
You don't like it? Fine, but don't assume that it doesn't work for anyone else. You had 8 straight losses at 2100, I have a higher win ratio than before at that level. If you have nothing useful or constructive to say, you don't need to reply. You were already warned in an earlier thread, please try to learn from that.
Also, you complain about the level of play at 2200 diamond, yet you think it's meaningful to dispel his arguments by stating that you lose with this BO at 2100 diamond... funny, eh?
|
On December 03 2010 10:22 Almania wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 10:03 genopath wrote:
I don't understand. Wasn't it proved beyond reasonable doubt (lol) that 9ol 10drone is far superior than extractor trick? The answer, as always, is it depends. If you're planning on going for say an economic 10 pool (not recommended due to larva timings), you're best off getting an overlord at 10. Not 9. As you'll still be saving for the pool by the time it's placed - meaning you're not supply blocked at any point. 11 pool (extractor trick) is the same story - if you want an early pool (in this case for an early queen) you're best off extractor tricking and 11 overlording. But yes, I'm not sure about this build. It's only economical if you drone up - where all the timings with the larva etc work out perfect - but if you get a single ling or gas you're then behind. I've given it a few goes and lost them all.. but my persevere for a little longer, but gas just doesn't seem to work with this build. Your best hope is that they get frightened into their base by the early pool.. but I haven't had such luck so far.
I've been doing this build for months, and building lings or gas at these times absolutely does not put me "behind" because I have more larvae in the early game than any other build due to the very fast queen, which I can use for whatever is most prudent at the time, making this build very flexible. I can overrun zergs with more zerglings, or FE protoss, or defend 2 rax marine, or pump more drones than any other pool first build, all because the queen comes out so early. Here is my build:
11 overpool
16 extractor (right when pool finishes so you have supply for a pair of lings+queen)
15 Queen
17 lings
18 overlord
18 hatchery at nat
ling speed @100 gas
more lings/drones as needed
Lings finish in time to escort your drone to the nat to build a hatch, which is awesome against e-bays and pylons, or worker blocks.
You can also cancel the extractor after making lings, and instead make the hatchery sooner for a more economical build, but I'm like JulyZerg, I usually like my ling speed.
|
On December 03 2010 09:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 09:37 Blisse wrote:
Can someone such as Idra do this build and provide replays? I would like to see someone with flawless mechanics try this build and give their opinion. It is difficult to argue for either side when the build isn't performed optimally.
Also, the updated build with gas is terrible. Missed overlords, as well as Shakura's Plateau. The gas doesn't matter as much in Shakura's because the huge distances do not favour any early aggression. Sure man, let me call up IdrA on the phone. I'm sure he'd be willing to accommodate us. And wouldn't the fact that the build isn't being preformed optimally, and yet is still winning so convincingly, be more of a compliment rather than a detriment? Or do you want me to give you a build so you don't have to think or adjust for 6 minutes?
Are you trying to insult me? Your sarcasm is terrible. I liked your build before (see page 2 or 3), but your attitude has convinced me otherwise.
It doesn't help that you play poorly, and that your opponents play poorly in every replay. Under ideal conditions, and if you want actual evidence of the strength of your build, prove it by providing 'perfect' replays; replays in which both players play nearly flawlessly.
If it's to become a new standardized build, as you want it to be, it should be up to par in every department and not lacking in any place. It would be different if you wanted to make a map specific, or match up specific build. But not a standard build.
Stop saying it's winning convincingly. You have to prove that it's not lacking anywhere, which cannot be proven if both players are not playing near perfect.
Then you talk about adjusting. Adjusting what? Making a useless Overlord? How is playing on Shakura's Plateau, the anti-aggression map, adjusting? I wasn't even arguing about adjustments, and you bring it up, so I'll continue. Of course you adjust. You just have to adjust well. If your adjustment is five extra Overlords, I want to see a specific use of those extra Overlords. If those same five Overlords could have been made somewhat consecutively for the exact same result, it's not an adjustment, it's an error.
The 7RR build was match up specific and caused the action. There was little room for variation (note 5RR and 9RR variants), because it did not rely on any other factors. It completely stopped almost every form of early aggression, so no adjustments were needed. It forced the opponent to make the adjustments. And it was also tailored towards Protoss, a race that relied on the lone Zealot, Stalker/Sentry to survive until Warp Gates finished. Early Roaches abused that narrow advantage. It dropped off at higher levels since better players reacted much better.
By suggesting this as a standard build, it must be able to adjust to perfect play, while being proven to outperform already proven builds. When one not playing perfectly, the entire game is useless as evidence. Mind games are generally useless if the build falls apart immediately afterwards compared to other builds.
That was on his methods and reasoning. On the actual build...
The most annoying thing is the scout timing. Because this build is very closely knit, all the timings are almost perfectly simultaneous. But only with the highest number of drones. Pulling one drone off slowed the build down quite a bit. However, the scout timing has always been complete preference.
|
On December 03 2010 10:33 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 10:18 Mephs wrote:
it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny. You're wrong. The build is in no way "the same" as 14 hatch 15 pool. It offers considerably more options for early aggression if desired; it is much easier to hold against bunker/cannon rush attempts, etc. You don't like it? Fine, but don't assume that it doesn't work for anyone else. You had 8 straight losses at 2100, I have a higher win ratio than before at that level. If you have nothing useful or constructive to say, you don't need to reply. You were already warned in an earlier thread, please try to learn from that. Also, you complain about the level of play at 2200 diamond, yet you think it's meaningful to dispel his arguments by stating that you lose with this BO at 2100 diamond... funny, eh?
Guarantee you 2200 diamond isn't that much more amazing than 2100. I don't feel comfortable with the build, my standard 14 pool/15 hatch or just 15 hatch first openings seem to flow better, but thats my playstyle. If it works for you whatever.
|
On December 03 2010 10:40 Blisse wrote:
Are you trying to insult me? Your sarcasm is terrible. I liked your build before (see page 2 or 3), but your attitude has convinced me otherwise.
You judge builds by the attitude of a guy propagating it on TL?
Seriously, this entire thread has become completely about ad hominem attacks on a poster advocating the 11-overpool into 18 expand; it has almost nothing to do with the actual build anymore.
It doesn't help that you play poorly, and that your opponents play poorly in every replay. Under ideal conditions, and if you want actual evidence of the strength of your build, prove it by providing 'perfect' replays; replays in which both players play nearly flawlessly.
Hint: Nobody who posted on this thread is an Idra-level Zerg.
Asking for ideal conditions is ludicrous. You're disqualifying a very well-documented proposal simply because you want "ideal" conditions which anyone but progamers will never be able to provide.
If it's to become a new standardized build, as you want it to be, it should be up to par in every department and not lacking in any place. It would be different if you wanted to make a map specific, or match up specific build. But not a standard build.
No. There is NO build that is "not lacking in any place", otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to use any other build. Trivial example: Any standard build is lacking in early aggression compared to a 6/8-pool.
The OP has put a lot of effort into documenting how his build plays out, and you're again making completely impractical requirements.
Stop saying it's winning convincingly. You have to prove that it's not lacking anywhere, which cannot be proven if both players are not playing near perfect.
Nonsense. You know exactly that noone on this thread plays near perfect. If your only point is that a progamer has not used this build yet, there's no reason to beat around the bush.
By suggesting this as a standard build, it must be able to adjust to perfect play, while being proven to outperform already proven builds. When one not playing perfectly, the entire game is useless as evidence. Mind games are generally useless if the build falls apart immediately afterwards compared to others.
Nonsense again. It is pointless to say "it must be able to adjust to perfect play" without providing anyone here any opportunity to provide evidence for or against it -- since clearly nobody posting here plays "perfectly". And it'd be folly to claim the converse, that if it works for progamers it must be "proven" to adjust to everything.
Hatch-first isn't safe independently of the map, but it's still considered standard. You cannot prove that a perfect cannon rush can't beat a perfectly defended 15 hatch 14 pool, because nobody plays perfectly.
|
On December 03 2010 10:43 Mephs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 10:33 bmn wrote:On December 03 2010 10:18 Mephs wrote:
it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny. You're wrong. The build is in no way "the same" as 14 hatch 15 pool. It offers considerably more options for early aggression if desired; it is much easier to hold against bunker/cannon rush attempts, etc. You don't like it? Fine, but don't assume that it doesn't work for anyone else. You had 8 straight losses at 2100, I have a higher win ratio than before at that level. If you have nothing useful or constructive to say, you don't need to reply. You were already warned in an earlier thread, please try to learn from that. Also, you complain about the level of play at 2200 diamond, yet you think it's meaningful to dispel his arguments by stating that you lose with this BO at 2100 diamond... funny, eh? Guarantee you 2200 diamond isn't that much more amazing than 2100. I don't feel comfortable with the build, my standard 14 pool/15 hatch or just 15 hatch first openings seem to flow better, but thats my playstyle. If it works for you whatever.
If it doesn't work for you, that's fine. But don't go around making sweeping generalizations about the build just because you don't like it. I don't make sweeping generalizations ("in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway", "Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny") in favor of it either just because I do like it.
That's what we have replays and evidence-based discussions for, heck, even theory-crafting is better than context-free whining.
Again, if all you want to say is that it didn't work for you and you prefer hatch first, that's perfectly fine. But then just say it and leave it at that.
|
On December 03 2010 10:53 bmn wrote:...
Near perfect should replace all instances of perfect in my post, but the underlying principle is the same. You cannot expect to play badly, or have your opponent play badly, then post the replays to try and prove a point.
I'm asking for near perfect plays. Try it out hundreds of thousands of times until almost all known permutations have been tried. And then see if it still holds up.
What you don't want is for half of those permutations to be full of errors. Errors like the timing is off, or an extra unit was created. That's why progamers practice the same match up on the same map against the same builds. To find and eliminate any flaws in their game. Adjustments do not become 'errors'. They become proven adjustments. After 10,000 games, the gamer has realized an earlier second pair of zerglings, an earlier overlord, or whatever, is more optimal for that instance. Something I believe leads to 'perfecting' the build.
I agree asking ideal situations is ludicrous. But accepting information as correct or true when it's not even near-ideal, is just as ludicrous.
Also, if the attitude of the poster is bad, I will disregard his opinion. I will analyze the build itself, and consider anything he says irrelevant, unless it pertains specifically to the build. When he attacks a person, I will not consider his opinion correct, since in his mind, it is also correct to attack a person.
I don't have to like the build to use it. If it's strong, I'll use it. If it improves my play, I'll use it. But I won't like it, or the creator.
By lacking in any place, I am still talking about the imperfect play. Nothing about the other builds.
-the responses are not in order, sorry for the inconvienence-
|
Hey nice job with the various replays 
Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
|
On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Hey nice job with the various replays Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy.
I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
|
Something told me that a pool first and late (later, should I say?) hatch build would come out on top.
|
On December 03 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Hey nice job with the various replays Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out! No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy. I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting.
People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing.
I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
|
The build looks solid to my eyes, I'm gonna test it soon. For one rather than optimal you should call it best-response build as under most scenarios it seems it can transition to different strategies, (defending against rush, going eco heavy etc)
However it would be interesting if you could address how the build is affected should you decide to use 1 drone to scout. Any best-response build must scout, or the build is vulnerable and thus it can be pareto-dominated by another build.
Secondly, how does your build compare to other builds in gas?
|
On December 03 2010 11:40 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Hey nice job with the various replays Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out! No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy. I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are. And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting. People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing. I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
It's not even his build, he held a thread to find the build. It was technically created by a guy named Lomilar.
|
On December 03 2010 11:46 JBrown08 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 11:40 Blisse wrote:On December 03 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Hey nice job with the various replays Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out! No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy. I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are. And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting. People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing. I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis. It's not even his build, he held a thread to find the build. It was technically created by a guy named Lomilar.
That's exactly what does not matter, and exactly the thing this thread shouldn't degrade to. It doesn't matter who made it, or who put it out there. Just the methods, the proof, the fine tuning, and more. Argue the topic, not around it. Have a direction if you are arguing around it, instead of arguing meaningless points.
|
On December 03 2010 11:59 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 11:46 JBrown08 wrote:On December 03 2010 11:40 Blisse wrote:On December 03 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Hey nice job with the various replays Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out! No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy. I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are. And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting. People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing. I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis. It's not even his build, he held a thread to find the build. It was technically created by a guy named Lomilar. That's exactly what does not matter, and exactly the thing this thread shouldn't degrade to. It doesn't matter who made it, or who put it out there. Just the methods, the proof, the fine tuning, and more. Argue the topic, not around it. Have a direction if you are arguing around it, instead of arguing meaningless points.
Well it was actually meant to try and not derail the thread by letting people know that the OP is somewhat impartial to the build, and is infact defending someone else's build after some adjustments. So I think it does kinda matter to keep this thread on topic.
I'm a zerg and I'm enjoying this thread, the more we can hammer this down the better.
|
On December 03 2010 11:40 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Hey nice job with the various replays Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out! No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy. I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are. And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting. People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing. I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
glad another one realizes the op is just another troll that has the definitive answer to zerg bos on any map and in any matchup
calling everyone a troll that critizes this build is just a choke. he never replied to the numerous complains especially when this build gets pressured, where it loses to every 14 pool as it can't catch up if it is not building drones, obviously. or that it falls behind if you actually build gas or zerglings which you will both do in every standard game. but hey don't mind this his own replays against some random players on bnet are definitive proof the build is working.
edit for a nice op quote on this topic, totally failing to answer the question:
On December 03 2010 08:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 07:48 Slayer91 wrote:
What I'm trying to say is; let's say at each point in time after you put down a pool you are behind in minerals compared to a 14 pool until 5 or 6 minutes in the game (gametime).
In which case if you ever need to spend enough resources on *non drones, e.g gas, ling speed, lings, spine crawlers* you may reach a point where you start to fall behind compared to a 14 pool doing things at the same time.(yes, same time game time, not same time relative to your spawning pool) Because even if you make lings at the same time as a 14 pool, his economy is better built to support that. That's what I'm saying.
Thus, any kind of pressure that's not designed to hit before a hatch first lings are out, theoretically is this builds weakness.
Now I'm not sure about how much this mineral deficit is, and how long it takes to overcome, at least not yet. It's possible that the rewards far outweigh the risks, but before every adopts this as their be all end all build we have to be rigorous. Your entire argument and this entire discussion is meaningless because you are operating on a FALSE ASSUMPTION, that this build is behind in economy. Take a look at my last replay. 11pool vs 15 Hatch 15Pool... I am ahead in resources mined at every point from 1:30 to 4:30 when I began making lings. The data is all there, in this thread and the previous. Obviously you aren't comparing to a build that doesn't include a hatch are you? Or do you think choosing 14 pool over 14 hatch will somehow change the drone count? I can't even make sense of this thread anymore. What attack is going to interrupt an 11 pool? You say a 2rax? I posted a replay of me putting down a hatch AND beating a2rax AND winning on economy in the mid-game. You are still trying to claim that my economy will simply be crippled because I opened 11pool instead of 14? I just don't get it anymore...
It's not even his build, he held a thread to find the build. It was technically created by a guy named Lomilar.
the other thread is totally about theorycrafting ignoring every real situation ingame. who cares which build is ahead if you just make drones for 6 minutes? it will NEVER happen in a real game. and obviously the winner is the build with the most spawn larvae cycles. the thread gets to a total joke when you see every safe standard build in the discarded section (fe 14 pool 16 hatch)
and you mean this guy that made the bo. i see he totally knows what he is talking about:
On December 03 2010 05:10 Lomilar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 04:48 fleeze wrote:
he did not suggest doing this "Double Ex Trick eco opening"? it is a thread about a BO posted in the op which i'm answering to.... not another opening that may be more economical. and i do not have to provide DATA i have to provide an argument or prove an argument wrong. i just did this.
my arguments are:
- this build wastes larvae (and mining time early on which is valuable against any early pressure)
- you are behind if pressured early (which the op says is a plus of this build, but you won't be able to 18 hatch if pressured and will have less drones as any regular build)
- no pro uses it (yes this IS an argument)
your call?
picking one point at a time sucks btw... especially if it is the weakest in a chain of arguments and this is exactly what the op is doing. dodging the obvious flaws in his build.
Okay. If you have a queen at 3:20, and one less larva, or a queen at 3:40 and that one larva, are you ahead or behind right now? In 20 seconds? In 40 seconds? Is 20 seconds before 40 seconds? Why, then you are ahead! You are behind if pressured early. Please provide evidence as to how you can't kill any early pressure with a freaking overpool. No pro uses it. You know what, you are right. No pro uses this build, because no pro built this build. Pros get paid to play the game and get good at the game, not to pour over numbers and do perfect tests at very slow speed in game, because if they do that, they will not be as good at Starcraft, and they will lose where it matters in a micro battle, or not know how to play the late game correctly, which is far more important, because build orders can be copied, but late game intuition cannot. Which should you practice as a pro gamer? Which one can nobody ever take away from you as a pro gamer? The answer is intuition. The Tasteless build (any of them) has never gotten Tasteless into the GSL.
On December 03 2010 09:28 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 09:22 fleeze wrote:
the last posts by various people referring to myself where hilarious btw. making up assumptions and statements i never made. just as expected.
Oh, you mean like when you said the OP claimed this build was ahead of hatch-first builds economically?
mind to quote me on this? i'm pretty sure i never said such a thing. but i know your reading comprehension lacks a bit just as you said before 
also please quote my posts in one piece instead of picking some sentences that fit your opinion. would be much appreciated.
|
I am really excited to try this build. 11 pool looks so much more reliable and consistent than hatch first. Thanks so much for sharing!
As for the posters trashing the build and the TC, how about less theorycraft and more replays? The TC posted several, time for you to step it up or shut up.
|
On December 03 2010 11:40 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Hey nice job with the various replays Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out! No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy. I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are. And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting. People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing. I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
The criticisms that were justified, I responded to. I posted replays facing practically every scenario requested.
When people ask how a scouting drone affects the build, I simply can't help but roll my eyes... It will affect the build by subtracting a few minerals. That's all. Maybe cause the queen or hatch to be a second and a half later. These things are not legitimate and not worth mentioning imo.
Gas is pretty much the same thing. Getting gas will just reduce minerals at the point you decide to get it. People seemed to think the whole build would fall apart and be worthless if they tried to get gas. So I posted a replay of me getting gas at 14 supply, and everything worked out fine.
Any argument or criticism based on claims that the BO is "behind" or inferior economically to build X-Pool is not worth discussing, because the claim is simply false and has been demonstrated to be false numerous times.
You want me to provide flawless execution and perfection in my replays? I'm sorry, I can't do that and never will. Not even IdrA can do that. And it doesn't matter in any case. It is not worth discussing. When people discuss things that aren't worth discussing, like why the OP doesn't play like God incarnate, then I call it trolling.
Hope this makes things clear.
|
i can't believe people are bashing the OP for putting a build out in public domain, that is very close to the economy of some hatch first builds, but with the FLEXIBILITY to provid eincredibly solid defence, or aggression.
Blisse is an amazing troll, and a bit umad.
Why try to argue that an extremely flexible economic opener, that also happens to be super safe from cheese isnt a good new standard for Zerg openings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
