|
On December 10 2010 03:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 22:33 ChickenLips wrote:
I think the individual mineral/larvae testing with ideal build orders etc. is extremely irrelevant to making you a better gamer (which I assume all this work is going into), especially as Zerg it will give you a miniscule advantage in maybe 1% of games where you are able to do the build order perfectly.
I was at first extremely anxious to finally test out a pool first build that is economically even to hatch first builds. After trying it for a couple of games however (and some noobs on ladder even overreacting to it) I have ultimatively decided to going back to hatch first as my standard economy build. I don't have the numbers to support my statement, however, from a relatively neutral standpoint (unlike the people that have already invested a lot of time into defending/attacking this build order), I can tell you that it feels worse compared to a hatch first. Not only does it get blocked much more often than 14 hatch does, it also has much later creep spread (which is one of the most important things when holding off early rushes) and is more forced to use its queen energy on injects to stay on an even level of production compared to a 14 hatch. (drone production is irrelevant when you want to get things like scouting, gas geysers, gas miners, zergling speed, roach warrens and early defense)
ZvT there's absolutely 0 reason to do it. It loses to everything while beating nothing. (please don't give me the it does well vs 2rax crap)
ZvZ it might be good, I haven't given this MU much attention though.
ZvP it does worse against a 4gate than hatch first does and it tends to get blocked in my experience.
These and many of the ones listed above are, I think, the reasons we never see hatches beyond 17 supply at the professional level. While the pros aren't the number-crunchers and theory-crafters like some posters in this thread are, they certainly have a fuckton of experience with all different kinds of builds and naturally steer towards those that actually do well in a real game of Starcraft 2 (which you cannot emulate using pretty graphs and vsAI replays). Noone in this thread is at a level where he wouldn't benefit from copying the pros and actually focusing on things like decision-making, larva management, scouting and overall strategy more than from doing these calculations. All in all, the time used on comparing 20 mineral differences between build orders is largely wasted, you have probably already noticed that all of the successful Starcraft 2 pros sort of wing their builds after approximate ideas and past experiences and gain the advantage elsewhere. 1) Your feelings are no basis for argument here. I feel like this build is better than hatch first. So what?
You're right, that won't get us very far.
2) The purpose of the testing and data is not to make you a better gamer. It is to shut up the people who keep repeating like drones that this build is "behind economically."
Why do you get so hurt over people saying that is is economically behind? Is it your job to protect the image of pool first builds?
3) Suggesting that a hatch block is more detrimental to a pool first build than a hatch first build is absurd. Getting your hatch blocked in hatch first is a HUGE hit. And I doubt that the few earlier seconds makes a difference in the frequency of hatch-blocking.
On 4 player maps you will almost never get your hatch blocked. If you see the drone is ready to block it you make a drone, an extractor and a pool. This isn't different for hatch first than it is for pool first. Yours will get blocked more often though
4) Saying it does well against 2rax isn't crap. It is documented fact and common sense. "But ret and Idra said....!" Yes, I know. Unlike some on TL I can think for myself and reach conclusions with common sense and data.
I'm sorry, but it is mind-numbingly stupid to suggest that hatch-first is better against 2rax. Every ounce of data rejects this conclusion. I have replays of 11 Pool crushing 2rax. And we have countless games of professionals losing to 2rax by going hatch first. The best zerg in the world got kicked from GSL because he stubbornly insisted on going hatch first every game against a 2raxing opponent.
Don't forget that the 2rax build was started as a COUNTER to hatch first play. That is the only reason it has been effective. So you can stubbornly follow the stubborn pros into defeat, or you can apply some common sense and think for yourself.
Yeah, your common sense and data is - no offense - worth crap in the real 'world' of SC2. There's people that play this game for 8 hours every fucking day and they have years of RTS experience. Noone cares whether you have replays of crushing 2rax by going 11 pool and replays of pros losing with hatch first to 2rax. I have replays of stupidest shit. Someone went 5rax reaper against me just yesterday. And I lost! I'm a crap player at 2.3k and the players I play against are even worse, your replays will never be able to make a definitve statement about what is better against 2rax because the level you play at and the age of the game combined put a big question mark behind any statement you wind up making. I don't know why you would even try to get into a build order test and make only drones WITH ZERG. Zerg is already getting raped in the ass all over the place by the most random builds. In every game you wind up playing you have to deal with imperfect information. It is pointless in my opinion, to waste time upon the perfect build if you never get to play it since you get something new and random thrown at you the next time you play anyway. It's better to try and learn how to adapt on the fly. Forget build orders. Learn how to play. Please stop being so ignorant and keep a more open mind to other builds.
5) You say the build only gives an advantage 1% of the time when you can do the build perfectly? Um, I posted 12 games of this build beating diamond players, and not once was it executed "perfectly." There is no such thing as perfect anyways.
Gah, your rage has made you blind. Whereas you could've scored an A or B at the start of this thread on reading comprehension, you're starting to grade worse and worse. I've said that build A will give you a miniscule advantage over build B in maybe 1% of cases. THUS (here comes the important part) it is much more important to focus on other aspects of gameplay such as the ones I have posted in my original post.
6) This build is all data and graphs against AI opponents, and doesn't do well in an actual game of starcraft? Again, look at point 5. Did you even read through the OP, or did you just look at the pictures?
Again, you misinterpret my post to be able to rage all over it. I again do not discredit this build as bad. I say most of the time invested into comparing minuscule details at certain time intervals is wasted since a) everyone is crap at the game b) the builds Z has to deal with change every few days c) even after 10 years of play, the ability to perfectly execute a certain build order or to know which one is best, scores amongst the lowest in priority for top players. Starcraft has so many variables (your opponent just being one of them) that scientific methods to try to optimize it are time inefficiently spent.
7) Despite stating that you are from a "neutral standpoint," you end up sounding almost irrationally opposed to the build in every respect.
You've become quite the irrational poster yourself. I personally don't care for this build much, even though I wanted it to be everything you have made it out to be in your OP. I was dissappointed and continue my search for improvement elsewhere.
I will not invest anymore time into this thread beyond this post. Good luck 
|
On December 10 2010 04:03 ChickenLips wrote:You've become quite the irrational poster yourself. I personally don't care for this build much, even though I wanted it to be everything you have made it out to be in your OP. I was dissappointed and continue my search for improvement elsewhere. I will not invest anymore time into this thread beyond this post. Good luck
I guess you can't hop in a build thread 30+ pages deep, insult the build, the OP, and the efforts of those involved without any contribution and expect a big high-five.
On December 09 2010 19:58 Markwerf wrote:
Overall I think this build has potential in (only) these 2 scenario's:
1. (small) 2 player maps such as steppes of war, blistering sands , xel naga caverns and possibly scrap station. You don't really need to scout with a variation of this build on those maps as early lings combined with your overlords can do that instead. Early hatch builds are also the most risky on these maps as they are garanteed to block your hatchery IF they want to as it are 2 player maps. Faking aggresion on the small maps also has the most potential.
2. It's very likely your opponent will do a greedy expansion build, for example a Protoss forge first expansion. By doing a quick pool timing you can then completely throw off the timings of their build while still being relatively fine if you want to just macro up. LeenockFou vs Guineapig at Lost temple in GSL 3 is a fine example of this.
I've started using 11/15 on larger maps and 11/18 on smaller maps. So far I've had great success and I'm perfectly satisfied with the potential of the builds. I haven't been following this thread with the same zeal I used to, but if you guys haven't given another look at 11/15 in the last ~10 pages it might be worth it to do so. I'll post the opening BO.
10 - Extractor trick
11 - Ovie
11 - Pool
15 - Hatch
15 - Queen
17 - Ovie
17 - Scout Lings
Here are the times I got from 1 replay:
Pool started - 1:35 [10 drones mining]
Hatch started - 2:42 [14 drones mining]
Queen started - 3:02 [15 drones mining]
Scout started - 3:05 [15 drones mining]
I'm not gonna post a replay simply because my times are nothing special, you'll probably beat them on your first try. That said, have a go at it. 11/15 is my new standard for anything but ZvZ. I normally send the drone scout right as the pool goes down.
EDIT: In case anyone forgot, I tested the 11/15 against the suggested 13/15, which JD tested against the 11/18 and I believe the conclusion from all those tests was that all three builds were economically very similar. So this isn't just some random build, its basically just a faster expand version of the 11/18. I can do some more thorough analysis next week.
|
Can someone add the 11/15 pool/hatch build into the origina post so we don't have to wade through 33 pages to discover their comparative advantages and uses?
|
On December 10 2010 04:03 ChickenLips wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 03:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 09 2010 22:33 ChickenLips wrote:
I think the individual mineral/larvae testing with ideal build orders etc. is extremely irrelevant to making you a better gamer (which I assume all this work is going into), especially as Zerg it will give you a miniscule advantage in maybe 1% of games where you are able to do the build order perfectly.
I was at first extremely anxious to finally test out a pool first build that is economically even to hatch first builds. After trying it for a couple of games however (and some noobs on ladder even overreacting to it) I have ultimatively decided to going back to hatch first as my standard economy build. I don't have the numbers to support my statement, however, from a relatively neutral standpoint (unlike the people that have already invested a lot of time into defending/attacking this build order), I can tell you that it feels worse compared to a hatch first. Not only does it get blocked much more often than 14 hatch does, it also has much later creep spread (which is one of the most important things when holding off early rushes) and is more forced to use its queen energy on injects to stay on an even level of production compared to a 14 hatch. (drone production is irrelevant when you want to get things like scouting, gas geysers, gas miners, zergling speed, roach warrens and early defense)
ZvT there's absolutely 0 reason to do it. It loses to everything while beating nothing. (please don't give me the it does well vs 2rax crap)
ZvZ it might be good, I haven't given this MU much attention though.
ZvP it does worse against a 4gate than hatch first does and it tends to get blocked in my experience.
These and many of the ones listed above are, I think, the reasons we never see hatches beyond 17 supply at the professional level. While the pros aren't the number-crunchers and theory-crafters like some posters in this thread are, they certainly have a fuckton of experience with all different kinds of builds and naturally steer towards those that actually do well in a real game of Starcraft 2 (which you cannot emulate using pretty graphs and vsAI replays). Noone in this thread is at a level where he wouldn't benefit from copying the pros and actually focusing on things like decision-making, larva management, scouting and overall strategy more than from doing these calculations. All in all, the time used on comparing 20 mineral differences between build orders is largely wasted, you have probably already noticed that all of the successful Starcraft 2 pros sort of wing their builds after approximate ideas and past experiences and gain the advantage elsewhere. 1) Your feelings are no basis for argument here. I feel like this build is better than hatch first. So what? You're right, that won't get us very far. Show nested quote +
2) The purpose of the testing and data is not to make you a better gamer. It is to shut up the people who keep repeating like drones that this build is "behind economically."
Why do you get so hurt over people saying that is is economically behind? Is it your job to protect the image of pool first builds? Show nested quote +
3) Suggesting that a hatch block is more detrimental to a pool first build than a hatch first build is absurd. Getting your hatch blocked in hatch first is a HUGE hit. And I doubt that the few earlier seconds makes a difference in the frequency of hatch-blocking.
On 4 player maps you will almost never get your hatch blocked. If you see the drone is ready to block it you make a drone, an extractor and a pool. This isn't different for hatch first than it is for pool first. Yours will get blocked more often though Show nested quote +
4) Saying it does well against 2rax isn't crap. It is documented fact and common sense. "But ret and Idra said....!" Yes, I know. Unlike some on TL I can think for myself and reach conclusions with common sense and data.
I'm sorry, but it is mind-numbingly stupid to suggest that hatch-first is better against 2rax. Every ounce of data rejects this conclusion. I have replays of 11 Pool crushing 2rax. And we have countless games of professionals losing to 2rax by going hatch first. The best zerg in the world got kicked from GSL because he stubbornly insisted on going hatch first every game against a 2raxing opponent.
Don't forget that the 2rax build was started as a COUNTER to hatch first play. That is the only reason it has been effective. So you can stubbornly follow the stubborn pros into defeat, or you can apply some common sense and think for yourself.
Yeah, your common sense and data is - no offense - worth crap in the real 'world' of SC2. There's people that play this game for 8 hours every fucking day and they have years of RTS experience. Noone cares whether you have replays of crushing 2rax by going 11 pool and replays of pros losing with hatch first to 2rax. I have replays of stupidest shit. Someone went 5rax reaper against me just yesterday. And I lost! I'm a crap player at 2.3k and the players I play against are even worse, your replays will never be able to make a definitve statement about what is better against 2rax because the level you play at and the age of the game combined put a big question mark behind any statement you wind up making. I don't know why you would even try to get into a build order test and make only drones WITH ZERG. Zerg is already getting raped in the ass all over the place by the most random builds. In every game you wind up playing you have to deal with imperfect information. It is pointless in my opinion, to waste time upon the perfect build if you never get to play it since you get something new and random thrown at you the next time you play anyway. It's better to try and learn how to adapt on the fly. Forget build orders. Learn how to play. Please stop being so ignorant and keep a more open mind to other builds. Show nested quote +
5) You say the build only gives an advantage 1% of the time when you can do the build perfectly? Um, I posted 12 games of this build beating diamond players, and not once was it executed "perfectly." There is no such thing as perfect anyways.
Gah, your rage has made you blind. Whereas you could've scored an A or B at the start of this thread on reading comprehension, you're starting to grade worse and worse. I've said that build A will give you a miniscule advantage over build B in maybe 1% of cases. THUS (here comes the important part) it is much more important to focus on other aspects of gameplay such as the ones I have posted in my original post. Show nested quote +
6) This build is all data and graphs against AI opponents, and doesn't do well in an actual game of starcraft? Again, look at point 5. Did you even read through the OP, or did you just look at the pictures?
Again, you misinterpret my post to be able to rage all over it. I again do not discredit this build as bad. I say most of the time invested into comparing minuscule details at certain time intervals is wasted since a) everyone is crap at the game b) the builds Z has to deal with change every few days c) even after 10 years of play, the ability to perfectly execute a certain build order or to know which one is best, scores amongst the lowest in priority for top players. Starcraft has so many variables (your opponent just being one of them) that scientific methods to try to optimize it are time inefficiently spent. Show nested quote +
7) Despite stating that you are from a "neutral standpoint," you end up sounding almost irrationally opposed to the build in every respect.
You've become quite the irrational poster yourself. I personally don't care for this build much, even though I wanted it to be everything you have made it out to be in your OP. I was dissappointed and continue my search for improvement elsewhere. I will not invest anymore time into this thread beyond this post. Good luck
Loved this post. People, go out and play! You need to be able to vary your build orders, if you go the same BO every game you will become predictable!
Personally I love 14hatch15pool on 4 player maps depending on spawn position.
Wish gg's to all!
|
On December 10 2010 03:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
1) Your feelings are no basis for argument here. I feel like this build is better than hatch first. So what?
2) The purpose of the testing and data is not to make you a better gamer. It is to shut up the people who keep repeating like drones that this build is "behind economically."
3) Suggesting that a hatch block is more detrimental to a pool first build than a hatch first build is absurd. Getting your hatch blocked in hatch first is a HUGE hit. And I doubt that the few earlier seconds makes a difference in the frequency of hatch-blocking.
4) Saying it does well against 2rax isn't crap. It is documented fact and common sense. "But ret and Idra said....!" Yes, I know. Unlike some on TL I can think for myself and reach conclusions with common sense and data.
I'm sorry, but it is mind-numbingly stupid to suggest that hatch-first is better against 2rax. Every ounce of data rejects this conclusion. I have replays of 11 Pool crushing 2rax. And we have countless games of professionals losing to 2rax by going hatch first. The best zerg in the world got kicked from GSL because he stubbornly insisted on going hatch first every game against a 2raxing opponent.
Don't forget that the 2rax build was started as a COUNTER to hatch first play. That is the only reason it has been effective. So you can stubbornly follow the stubborn pros into defeat, or you can apply some common sense and think for yourself.
5) You say the build only gives an advantage 1% of the time when you can do the build perfectly? Um, I posted 12 games of this build beating diamond players, and not once was it executed "perfectly." There is no such thing as perfect anyways.
6) This build is all data and graphs against AI opponents, and doesn't do well in an actual game of starcraft? Again, look at point 5. Did you even read through the OP, or did you just look at the pictures?
7) Despite stating that you are from a "neutral standpoint," you end up sounding almost irrationally opposed to the build in every respect.
EDIT: I added another spoiler to the OP so that the "only look at the pictures" crowd won't see ANY replays at all. Hope that will prevent this issue in the future.
1) You're right feeling don't matter much. However you should learn that your own feelings about your own build also don't matter much.
2) I proved in my earlier post with good testing that this build IS economically behind. Stop being a dick by ignoring any sensable post that contradicts your belief, the build is slightly behind in economy compared to a 14 pool build, simple FACT. Basically anyone assumed this without testing because a) a 11 pool slightly cuts drones and b) an earlier pool means you lose a drone earlier, I've actually invested the time to test it properly and proved it IS behind ~50 minerals. Your testing is flawed in many ways:
1) you don't test against a proper build (and arguing you weren't provided one is the lamest argument there is)
2) you chose poor timings to make your graph. Noone cares if a build is ahead if after 6 minutes, it only matters for the first few minutes, build always deviate after that anyway
3) A hatch block is WAY more likely against a pool first build then a hatch first build. You may think ~30 seconds is nothing but it is alot because most people scout between 9 and 13 pop. That means they will basically always arrive at your natural after you've placed a 14 hatch if they don't scout you first. With a 16 or later hatch the chance it gets blocked is easily 4x as big as not only first scouting you but also scouting you 2nd or even scouting you last (if they 9 scouted) will be on time to block your hatch.
4) Claiming it does well against 2 rax is actually a big liability. Four of the top zergs (FD, nestea, idra, ret) stand by 14 hatch against double rax openings for various reasons. Basically their sentiment boils down to the fact that you not only need early lings to defend but also a forward spine crawler, with a 18 hatch this is basically not possible. 2 rax opener is not a all-in, if you defend against it you don't automatically win. You need to hold it off AND be on a decent economy to have a chance against one of the various followups. The fact that 2 rax openings on very small maps is imbalanced is much more likely then your statement that 11 pool is so good against it. Besides only on steppes do you know before you commit to this build if they are in close pos. On meta/LT you might be doing this build while they are cross position in which case 14 hatch is also FAR superior.
5) Replays are not that valid as proof if you're not a great player. It may seem impossible to proof things at times but replays mean very little really especially if they are handpicked by the author of a guide or build order
6) See my point 2). Your graphs are misleading (the data beyond 4 minutes is mostly irrelevant yet you base most your points on it and the data before 4 minutes is simply wrong/incomplete).
7) You are the one acting irrational. You only listen/answer to posts to your liking and dismiss any valid post that contradicts your findings. Tons of people have said this build is 1) economically behind, which any moron can see immediately (how can cutting drones early AND getting a early pool not cost you before your first inject resolves. Check my data to see proof they were right.
2) this build has more trouble incorporating early deviations which is ALSO true. Testing the build easily reveals that this build is more mineral tight then other builds which is also obvious as it has less minerals and more larvae... Also since there is a point where you are having a idle hatchery it means you can't deviate AT ALL before that point or you will be getting even more idle time.
|
On December 10 2010 04:03 ChickenLips wrote:
Yeah, your common sense and data is - no offense - worth crap in the real 'world' of SC2. There's people that play this game for 8 hours every fucking day and they have years of RTS experience.
Sounds like a scary world o.o'
|
Man, Psy sure ate his words with those two casts! I can't wait to try this out.
|
it's friday tomorrow, i'm gonna try this build in all games i play and post the results i got. gonna be a fun couple o' days
|
lol i'm seriously gonna kick some ass with a 10 hatchery 20 pool build... developed by the EvoChamber to get 24 zerglings 24 banelings and 32 drones in 7:37 mins. This would seriously rape someone's economy in say a 4v4 lolz.
Edit: Got completely raped with this build...lol if i keep this up i' won't be playing vs plats and diamonds no more and kiss good-bye to any future meaningful tests XD
|
On December 10 2010 03:39 IPA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 03:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
4) Saying it does well against 2rax isn't crap. It is documented fact and common sense. "But ret and Idra said....!" Yes, I know. Unlike some on TL I can think for myself and reach conclusions with common sense and data.
You seem like an articulate fellow but isn't it a little presumptuous to claim that two of the best Zergs in the world are flat out wrong, after weeks of testing against top competition? As opposed to practicing on...North American ladder and Build Order Gizmo #2394? Idra's practice habits appear to be unbelievably thorough -- he takes his job very seriously obviously. Ret is a beast as we all know. After dedicating all those hours to their craft, I have a hard time finding anything in this thread that overturns their opinion. As a decent Z (2200+) I can tell you I enjoy considerably more success with 15 hatch than this 11 pool build. Shrug. Cheers.
Cixus here...
the 11 pool is a very safe build which is why I used it in these games. close positions on meta and steppes allows for extreme early aggression and if you try and 15 hatch or 14 pool you WILL be behind. cannons/2 rax bunkers at the bottom of the ramp will put you massively behind.. even with 14 pool you will not be able to block these strats..
11 pool blocks both of these if played correctly- most T's or P's wont even try it when they see such an early pool.
I have played well over 100 games agiasnt 2600+ oppo's, I myself am 2650Z. So far I like its safety, and it easily tranisiotns into a very economic build if you see no aggression coming.
EDIT: at the end of IdrA streaming this morning, he lost 2 straight games to scouted 2 rax.. I believe this build is the answer.
|
I think 11/18 might be better against Toss on some maps.
For example, on Jungle Basin. Rather than taking your natural with the 18 hatch, probably after scouting a FE from Toss, you take the middle expansion instead. I doubt you could do this with Hatch first as you have to put down your hatch before scouting info. This totally negates the Forge FE + cannon wall-in.
You might be able to use something similar on maps like Lost Temple, where you take another main as your 18 Hatch after sending two late scouts. The one that finds an empty main claims it.
The goal is always to prevent cannon rushing and to have a quick third, which is usually very good vs Toss FE. This might not be good in practice, but it is a possible advantage of the pool first build. You might also try to take the Gold on Metalo/Scrap.
|
On December 10 2010 07:05 Balor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 03:39 IPA wrote:On December 10 2010 03:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
4) Saying it does well against 2rax isn't crap. It is documented fact and common sense. "But ret and Idra said....!" Yes, I know. Unlike some on TL I can think for myself and reach conclusions with common sense and data.
You seem like an articulate fellow but isn't it a little presumptuous to claim that two of the best Zergs in the world are flat out wrong, after weeks of testing against top competition? As opposed to practicing on...North American ladder and Build Order Gizmo #2394? Idra's practice habits appear to be unbelievably thorough -- he takes his job very seriously obviously. Ret is a beast as we all know. After dedicating all those hours to their craft, I have a hard time finding anything in this thread that overturns their opinion. As a decent Z (2200+) I can tell you I enjoy considerably more success with 15 hatch than this 11 pool build. Shrug. Cheers. EDIT: at the end of IdrA streaming this morning, he lost 2 straight games to scouted 2 rax.. I believe this build is the answer.
GAH!
Way to take his losses out of context. He was playing absolute horse shit near the end of his stream and tilted so hard he wrote 'fuck you' to his opponent and immediately shut off the stream.
|
haha this op is really pathetic.
again he just ignores the arguments even in posts way better formulated then those by myself and just states how easy it is to hold the (INITIAL!!!!) 2 rax push.
4) Saying it does well against 2rax isn't crap. It is documented fact and common sense. "But ret and Idra said....!" Yes, I know. Unlike some on TL I can think for myself and reach conclusions with common sense and data.
really funny. i think your "common sense" lacks a bit since everyone agreed this build WILL hold the 2 rax first push. BUT afterwards it is behind since a 2 rax build has some pretty nice follow ups. even ret said the thread about his quote. just use your "common sense" and maybe you will get it. discrediting the top zerg players for not using your build is just the icing on the cake of this failed logic.
and please... work on your reading comprehension and answer to the actual argument provided not something obvious
On December 10 2010 04:03 ChickenLips wrote:
Yeah, your common sense and data is - no offense - worth crap in the real 'world' of SC2. There's people that play this game for 8 hours every fucking day and they have years of RTS experience. Noone cares whether you have replays of crushing 2rax by going 11 pool and replays of pros losing with hatch first to 2rax. I have replays of stupidest shit. Someone went 5rax reaper against me just yesterday. And I lost! I'm a crap player at 2.3k and the players I play against are even worse, your replays will never be able to make a definitve statement about what is better against 2rax because the level you play at and the age of the game combined put a big question mark behind any statement you wind up making. I don't know why you would even try to get into a build order test and make only drones WITH ZERG. Zerg is already getting raped in the ass all over the place by the most random builds. In every game you wind up playing you have to deal with imperfect information. It is pointless in my opinion, to waste time upon the perfect build if you never get to play it since you get something new and random thrown at you the next time you play anyway. It's better to try and learn how to adapt on the fly. Forget build orders. Learn how to play. Please stop being so ignorant and keep a more open mind to other builds.
qft
and everyone should read markwerfs post, pretty much sums it up on the points the op is making. especially:
Tons of people have said this build is 1) economically behind, which any moron can see immediately (how can cutting drones early AND getting a early pool not cost you before your first inject resolves. Check my data to see proof they were right.
2) this build has more trouble incorporating early deviations which is ALSO true. Testing the build easily reveals that this build is more mineral tight then other builds which is also obvious as it has less minerals and more larvae... Also since there is a point where you are having a idle hatchery it means you can't deviate AT ALL before that point or you will be getting even more idle time.
a good example of using common sense. waiting for the op to prove it wrong with his replay though.
|
I hope jd replies to MarkWerf soon. His criticism is nothing if not well-considered - and actually not altogether dismissive. It would be cool if a concensus could be reached.
I'm less impressed by the various arguments by authority, along the lines of "Idra and Ret don't do it so it must suck", "I'm a 20000 Diamond Zerg and I don't like this build, so it sucks", and so on.
If a top Zerg like Idra or Ret were to drop by and put forward a motivated opinion on the build, that would carry more weight.
|
11 pool 18 hatch is not the most economic build.
yes it is at the 6 minute mark, but not later on.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/XBELW.png)
|
On December 10 2010 07:33 TehForce wrote:
11 pool 18 hatch is not the most economic build.
yes it is at the 6 minute mark, but not later on.
Can you explain the figures? Why does income gain decelerate?
|
Well, if there is a thing i don't like, it's the tone of that conversation. Still I am pretty much agree with ChickenLips here.
I don"t want to engage a quote war. It's completely useless and won't help.
So here's my opinion after testing that build those last days ( 1500 D if it means something...600 bonus pool ! ho yeah bab' ! ), my feelings are that it's a good build, with some nice advantage ( i won't sum' them up again ) but ( and i don't care about theory and numbers which are good enough for me ) the creep is the key imo to hold against 2rax.
I didn't have a lot of 2rax during this days, in fact i didn't have a lot of terran. But with one of my T practice partner i lost a lot ( larvae ), really. He's also way better than me so, but still.
I did have a lot of success in ZvP, but the early pool mess them a lot sometimes. Anyway, i'll keep it in ZvP for now.
Of course, it really shine in ZvZ. Allow you to scout and react in time, ideal for now. But, i do get this match up more and more so, maybe it's also me. ^^
So guess what, my conclusion is : Try it, make yourself an idea. Practice it so you get used to those new timings. It's a good build, not perfect as every build imo but its very nice and flexible ( even if i would probably never all in on 1 base ).
And actualy, i like that idea from Pwere concerning Jungle basin where i lost almost so much ZvP. If we could get a 3rd at the natural, man that would be completely different. Still there's a lot to consider, but, i just like that idea ! ^^
|
Have any pros posted their thoughts on this build yet? I have been wanting to ask some super zergs their thoughts on this build for a while now.
Personally i've been using it in all matchups for a couple weeks now but there's not much I can say about it since I've beaten two raxes, but also lost to it. At my level the opening I do doesn't seem to make much of a difference. I went from 14 hatch 14 pool, into 14 pool 14 gas and I found that better because everyone enjoys making half an ebay/ pylon at my natural location.
(2k ladder rated, play with much higher opponents though.)
|
On December 10 2010 00:29 dementrio wrote:This is what I've been saying all along. a 14pool is better if you get lings, because the 11pool build is _worse_ economically in the beginning,
A 12 pool is only 25 minerals worse. I haven't analyzed 11 overpool. Those 25 minerals rarely matter for any purpose, and are easily regained by getting future Drones earlier.
if you make lings instead you have had less drones mining and the new drones that you'll make when you can will have mined for a shorter time.
Eh? You're comparing 14 pool against a middle pool that builds lings before 14 pool could possibly do so? 14 pool can't possibly be the better choice then, because it couldn't have gotten you the lings when you felt you needed them. 
|
I mentioned this a few pages ago, but no one seems to have noticed it.
What are this build's advantages over a double extractor trick 12 overpool? The build gets spawning pool about 7 seconds later, but has an extra drone. You can get 15ov, then at 16 get the Queen and one pair of lings right away, and then hatch safely with the pair of lings helping with clearing the block at your natural. You can gas right after the Queen for a decent gas timing without hurting the expo timing much at all.
I find it infinitely more reliable. The double extractor trick makes you lose 12 minerals, but that's such a tiny amount it really shouldn't even matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
