|
On December 03 2010 12:15 jdseemoreglass 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. The criticisms that were justified, I responded to. I posted replays facing practically every scenario requested.
no you didn't. you answered with totally wrong arguments or ignored the question asked.
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.
you realize that one less probe has a pretty significant meaning? it's one less probe mining all the time. the concern of people mentioning this is that it will not allow a fluent build because you are missing minerals at key timings.
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.
yep your replay is proof. getting gas will reduce the minerals SIGNIFICANTLY. you lose the extractor drone and you have another 3 drones not mining gas, shaking up the timings of the build.
Any argument or criticism based on claims that the BO is "behind" or inferior economically to build X is not worth discussing, because the claim is simply false and has been demonstrated to be false numerous times.
where? with your 6 minute test? i laugh at this that is proof of nothing. there is a totally valid point even blind people should be able to see: it has less minerals until the first spawn larvae cycle hits. but you proofed it wrong with a replay where your ahead against a 15 pool zerg all the time BEFORE the extra larvae come to play. if you fail to see this is totally bullshit your blind.
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.
it would be enough if you demonstrated some replays against actually good players that play aggressive openings. early 1 berserker + 1 stalker pressure, very common in zvp, or 2 rax pressure with bunker or scv all in. just general builds that attack early. and to sum it up you should compare it to a 14 pool in the same situation. i bet the 14 pool has a better economy if your first spawn larvae cycle has to build zerglings. go proof me wrong you totally dodged this argument the whole thread.
|
I have a suggestion to everyone here... If you are complaining about this build not working due to specific variables: add those to the list of requirements.
For example:
If you want a certain amount of lings out at a set time, specify that. If you want 100 gas at a specific timing, specify that. And so forth.
Then all that needs to be done is assume that you are going 11 OL, 11 Pool. Everything after that can be fine tuned to meet your requirements.
You can then run "Your" build (14 pool, whatever) through a test phase and calculate exactly what you have (lings, gas, etc...) at that time frame. Someone then can start with an 11 pool and see if they can meet those requirements by that time frame and look at the difference in minerals.
This is perfectly valid way to see how flexible this build is.
Stop saying: But 14 pool can get X zerglings by Y time and be better in every way!
Just figure out how much gas and how many lings you want and when, and then test. And if you want to scout at a specific "Time" (do not say at a specific supply as that is irrelevent) list that as a requirement. Anything else is just hearsay.
|
fleeze, your meandering style of discourse makes it very hard to follow what you're really trying to say. Your arguments do not make sense as they stand, especially sentences like
yep your replay is proof. getting gas will reduce the minerals SIGNIFICANTLY. you lose the extractor drone and you have another 3 drones not mining gas, shaking up the timings of the build.
Note that 14-pool without gas is also much more mineral-reach than 14-pool with. This is clearly true for any build. You make no point at all to demonstrate that 11pool is affected more severely by this than other builds assuming you take the gas at the same time.
(Clearly there may be very specific times where this is the case, but it is *your* duty to show when these timings are and that these timings are relevant, given all the evidence that suggests the opposite for a large set of useful gas timings.)
Or sentences like this:
but you proofed it wrong with a replay where your ahead against a 15 pool zerg all the time BEFORE the extra larvae come to play. if you fail to see this is totally bullshit your blind
Sorry, but what the hell does this mean? He proved it in a replay and yet you prefer insulting people rather than believing that what the replay shows is meaningful? It's hard to understand your point there. You have *not* provided any meaningful comparisons in replays, you waffle on about unsubstantiated stuff based on your pseudo-logical arguments. This would be fine in a pure theory-crafting thread, but this thread has loads of actual replays, submitted by different people, and meticulously recorded mineral/drone/larvae/etc. counts across time for different builds.
If you want to partake in this discussion in a serious manner, and you want to refute claims made based on data like that, then provide your own data, don't just call things "bullshit" that even "blind people" can see.
There is a timing window where 11-overpool is behind 14-pool. The OP has shown graphs of how the builds compare. The timing window where you are behind on minerals is not relevant to most of the situations you address; this already includes no-gas late-pool or hatch-first builds, so merely saying "things fall apart if you add gas" is not convincing. The same happens for any other build too.
And then you make clearly wrong statements such as
it would be enough if you demonstrated some replays against actually good players that play aggressive openings. early 1 berserker + 1 stalker pressure, very common in zvp, or 2 rax pressure with bunker or scv all in. just general builds that attack early.
The OP has demonstrated it. Look at the very first post to see replays against 2-rax for example. If you seriously claim that 11-pool is worse against early cheeses than 14-pool, please back it up with replays of your own instead of saying, without any evidence, that everyone else who has actually tried it is wrong, regardless of what data they provide to substantiate their point.
|
On December 03 2010 12:19 Scrimpton wrote:
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?
It happens all the time. Rather than pay attention to the trolls, just pay attention to the people who are bashing the OP for overselling the idea and ignoring reasonable criticism along with the unreasonable.
|
Wait, people are suggesting this build is weak to early pressure, despite the fact that it gets an earlier pool? I am so confused. If anything, the whole problem with this build is that it fails economy wise. Which it doesn't...so yea.
The main downside I see is that the 18hatch gets the creep up at the natural slower, and sometimes you really want that creep as fast as possible.
I had no idea that the fast queen made that much of an economic difference. I'll definitely start using this from now on.
Edit: By the way, the point that your opponent will overreact to an overpool is a little strange. If this becomes standard, then clearly people would not necessarily consider it early pressure.
|
As long as people continue to put pylons at your ramp, I think this build might be a really good build against toss. It will let you take out the pylons much earlier. However, it might also be better to have the patrolling drone instead. I see a lot of the pros using a patrolling drone at the ramp, so there's a good chance that this is the best strategy, rather than relying on lings, which will take time to arrive, to take down a pylon.
I still think that economic builds are better. They do mine more minerals, and if they couldn't be defended, people wouldn't do them. If it turns out to be economically better to use this early pool to take down ramp pylons rather than a patrolling drone this build will definitely be the build for ZVP though. Do you know what the economic losses are using the lings from this build compared to a patrolling drone?
|
@fleeze & @Blisse
Please give it a rest. Clearly you diagree with this build or at least the way that the OP presented it. While I wouldnt call what you have done so far trolling, lets not get to that point ok?
As far as the OP is concerned, clearly I think a few overly broad statements about how this build is better then all others. But the build itself I think is very solid with clear advantages at various points in time depending on the map and countering a larger number of all-in early attacks while adding safety at the expense of a little bit of econ.
|
On December 03 2010 13:19 obsid wrote:
@fleeze & @Blisse
Please give it a rest. Clearly you diagree with this build or at least the way that the OP presented it. While I wouldnt call what you have done so far trolling, lets not get to that point ok?
As far as the OP is concerned, clearly I think a few overly broad statements about how this build is better then all others. But the built itself I think is very solid with clear advantages at various points in time depending on the map and countering a larger number of all-in early attacks while adding safety at the expense of a little bit of econ.
I'm arguing that he does not show good enough replays to warrant any proper evaluation.
I'm not sure what fleeze is arguing.
If you or the opponent cannot execute a build perfectly up to at least ~30 supply, the results are invalidated. If you or the opponent makes a significant mistake in decision making, the results are invalidated.
That's all I'm saying.
I ask for a better player like Idra because he is ridiculously meticulous about timings and those few seconds between actions. But in all honesty, just executing the early build flawlessly is enough with good decision making. I'm sure most 2000pt Diamond players can do that. However, if neither player does so in the replays, I can't form an opinion on the build. The rest is theorycrafting.
And don't be condescending. He presented it inadequately with bad replays. I want it to be shown to the best of its abilities.
I love how people consider me a troll. I'm serious in all regards.
I will practice the build more when I have spare time.
|
On December 03 2010 13:17 jacobman wrote:
As long as people continue to put pylons at your ramp, I think this build might be a really good build against toss. It will let you take out the pylons much earlier. However, it might also be better to have the patrolling drone instead. I see a lot of the pros using a patrolling drone at the ramp, so there's a good chance that this is the best strategy, rather than relying on lings, which will take time to arrive, to take down a pylon.
I still think that economic builds are better. They do mine more minerals, and if they couldn't be defended, people wouldn't do them. If it turns out to be economically better to use this early pool to take down ramp pylons rather than a patrolling drone this build will definitely be the build for ZVP though. Do you know what the economic losses are using the lings from this build compared to a patrolling drone?
I'm not sure why you think this build means you need to use lings.
Just patrol a drone with this build and you're in the same ballpark as hatch-first build regarding econ.
You *can* use lings if you want to, but the early pool is not there for the lings, that is merely a pleasant side-effect.
As to the poster asking why people would expect early aggression, it's two-fold: First of all, this build is definitely not standard yet, so people currently don' t expect overpool for a macro build. Second, even if this becomes a standard build, the *threat* of overpool -> early aggression always remains; that's the beauty vs hatch-first, where the opponent already knows that you won't attack early.
|
|
|
I'm not sure why you think this build means you need to use lings.
Just patrol a drone with this build and you're in the same ballpark as hatch-first build regarding econ.
bmn,
I know, I'm just saying that I think it's better to use the econ builds instead. From what I've seen and found, they can be defended, so I would use them since they do result in more minerals, even if it is one or two hundred.
The reason I brought up lings was because a hatch first builds only real defense against a pylon at the ramp is the patrolling drone, so if this 11 pool build can take it down more efficiently with lings than a patrolling drone can preventing a pylon than that might make this build the more economical choice against toss.
|
Really enjoy using this build so far. It actually handles 2rax aggression much better than I assumed. Especially considering how quickly you can get a spine crawler up by building it in the main.
|
On December 03 2010 13:33 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 13:19 obsid wrote:
@fleeze & @Blisse
Please give it a rest. Clearly you diagree with this build or at least the way that the OP presented it. While I wouldnt call what you have done so far trolling, lets not get to that point ok?
As far as the OP is concerned, clearly I think a few overly broad statements about how this build is better then all others. But the built itself I think is very solid with clear advantages at various points in time depending on the map and countering a larger number of all-in early attacks while adding safety at the expense of a little bit of econ. I'm arguing that he does not show good enough replays to warrant any proper evaluation. I'm not sure what fleeze is arguing. If you or the opponent cannot execute a build perfectly up to at least ~30 supply, the results are invalidated. If you or the opponent makes a significant mistake in decision making, the results are invalidated. That's all I'm saying. I ask for a better player like Idra because he is ridiculously meticulous about timings and those few seconds between actions. But in all honesty, just executing the early build flawlessly is enough with good decision making. I'm sure most 2000pt Diamond players can do that. However, if neither player does so in the replays, I can't form an opinion on the build. The rest is theorycrafting. And don't be condescending. He presented it inadequately with bad replays. I want it to be shown to the best of its abilities. I love how people consider me a troll. I'm serious in all regards. I will practice the build more when I have spare time.
Why don't you post those replays? Every time someone puts effort into presenting a new build, in this case a ton of effort, along come the mad kids to kick over the sand castle.
If you are skilled enough to execute the opening "properly" then do so, and show us what that means. If you aren't that skilled, then ask someone you know who is and get them to correctly execute the build. However, if you know of no one you could ask whose execution you respect, then why would you expect any of us to know them either?
If you want to complain, you should be willing to act.
|
This is amazing. And terrifying for me as a protoss, as my only consolation against zerg in the early game was being able to quickly establish if they were going to go heavy econ or try to push me early... now I'm going to be left wondering, and will have to wall with my cyber core (allowing you to scout my 4gate every time) on the danger of the 11pool sending a bunch of early speedlings to runby.
Crap.
|
Those who sacrifice econ for safety deserve neither! -IdrA (probably)
I prefer to 200pool
|
On December 03 2010 13:33 Blisse wrote:
I ask for a better player like Idra because he is ridiculously meticulous about timings and those few seconds between actions.
It is so ridiculous when people demand "top level" replays before giving any credence to an idea.
First, Idra and Fruitdealer are not going to come down here and give you their perfect replays of trying out someone's new build.
Second, if a build can be successful at the 2200 diamond level, that is proof enough that it is viable for 99.5% of people, despite occasional minute errors in the build. It is proof that the thread is useful and deserves to be taken seriously with replay-based discussion rather than theorcraft.
Third, many less-than-perfect replays have demonstrated builds that went on to be viable at a wide variety of levels of play, including at the pro level, such as KCDC's fast expand.
If your only criticism of the build is "I can't evaluate this build until I see it performed flawlessly against all flawlessly performed builds that I theorycraft will beat it..."
Then, just DONT EVALUATE THE BUILD and use up all this space in the thread...
|
On December 03 2010 14:10 Obsolescence wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 13:33 Blisse wrote:On December 03 2010 13:19 obsid wrote:
@fleeze & @Blisse
Please give it a rest. Clearly you diagree with this build or at least the way that the OP presented it. While I wouldnt call what you have done so far trolling, lets not get to that point ok?
As far as the OP is concerned, clearly I think a few overly broad statements about how this build is better then all others. But the built itself I think is very solid with clear advantages at various points in time depending on the map and countering a larger number of all-in early attacks while adding safety at the expense of a little bit of econ. I'm arguing that he does not show good enough replays to warrant any proper evaluation. I'm not sure what fleeze is arguing. If you or the opponent cannot execute a build perfectly up to at least ~30 supply, the results are invalidated. If you or the opponent makes a significant mistake in decision making, the results are invalidated. That's all I'm saying. I ask for a better player like Idra because he is ridiculously meticulous about timings and those few seconds between actions. But in all honesty, just executing the early build flawlessly is enough with good decision making. I'm sure most 2000pt Diamond players can do that. However, if neither player does so in the replays, I can't form an opinion on the build. The rest is theorycrafting. And don't be condescending. He presented it inadequately with bad replays. I want it to be shown to the best of its abilities. I love how people consider me a troll. I'm serious in all regards. I will practice the build more when I have spare time. Why don't you post those replays? Every time someone puts effort into presenting a new build, in this case a ton of effort, along come the mad kids to kick over the sand castle. If you are skilled enough to execute the opening "properly" then do so, and show us what that means. If you aren't that skilled, then ask someone you know who is and get them to correctly execute the build. However, if you know of no one you could ask whose execution you respect, then why would you expect any of us to know them either? If you want to complain, you should be willing to act.
The problem is I don't see the effort you're seeing. What I see is a build that he's defending. The replays he provide appear to be random ladder games he played using the build. Not games that were specifically played to test out, and that even attempted to be good.
I don't post the replays because I don't have the time, to play the game or to learn and execute the builds perfectly. And I don't feel it's my responsibility. He wants to prove his build is legitimate. I disagree based on what I'm seeing from the replays. If he cares to change them, I may or may not change my mind. If he doesn't, I simply move on.
Where did respect and skill come from? I said I'll look at the results if the players are playing without major errors. I even said, from what I remember as 1800 Diamond a month ago, at least they had correct fundamentals and build orders. I may be mistaken. I don't care who does it. Idra came first to my mind because he's recognized. Get any random player, even a Bronze player, that executes this with an equally skilled player and give me that replay. But only if players don't mess up build orders within ~30 supply.
I don't have time like I'm assuming everyone here does. I'm not going to take every build that pops up on Team Liquid, try it 50 times, and come back giving you the results. I expect the person suggesting the build to do that. Once they've tried it 50, or a 100 times, they better show me the best games that they have. The games where everything is perfectly done, and still their build holds off.
Why invest time learning a new build that might not even hold up in higher level play? Why would you learn the 7RR at 1000 Diamond if it becomes obsolete after 1200 Diamond, especially when you don't have time to learn and prepare every build that comes your way.
I'm only asking to see if this is worth my time. It looks interesting and promising, but that's not enough.
On December 03 2010 14:38 l90 Proof wrote: with replay-based discussion rather than theorycraft..
and I want better replays? I don't care what happened in other threads that I haven't read.
I don't understand the problem with wanting better replays. Honestly.
|
DNFTT guys....
Anyway, I posted a new replay. I thought it was pretty funny because we ended up doing the exact same build. Take a look if you're interested.
|
was messing with this build tonight it was working for me. quite flexible in zvz if you scout speedlings you can get banelings up real fast and ur speedlings wont be far behind but i can hold the expo something i used to have a huge problem with zvz. zvp its been pretty good too allowing my to punish stalker first builds and harass even zealot first builds a bit.havent really used it zvt much try to go a little econ heavier vt.
|
I've tested the build seems fine. It's a good way to "FE" a little bit safer I guess.
I do have problems with gas though. I still don't know when to make my first real gas for either speedlings or banelings. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
