|
On December 11 2010 10:03 Vaporized wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 08:43 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 11 2010 08:35 Vaporized wrote:On December 11 2010 08:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 11 2010 06:05 Vaporized wrote:On December 11 2010 03:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 11 2010 03:17 Inflexion wrote:The huge glaring problem I see with this build is 'what if the T decides to build a few marines with the 2rax and decides to march over to your base to fake an attack? and then just retreat. You will be forced to use the larva to make zerglings which puts you behind the T significantly. Not only that but you'll be forced to attack with the zerglings to do damage (you'll have useless zerlging sitting around as the T is walled in) AND having a much much later hatch (due to deviating from making lings instead of drones) or the T will be miles ahead coming out of early game, IMO. The thing with 14hatch over these early pool builds against T is that it already takes into account that the enemy is 2rax-ing. If they don't bunker rush with a few SCVs, then you're AT MINIMUM (with 14hatch) on par with the T's economy. Then the rest of the game can continue on an even basis. 14hatching already takes into account a 2rax opening; therefore, the rest comes down to micro to defend. If you can defend it, you'll be only slightly behind or best case, ahead. If you early pool, any better than your average joe Terran will just apply some early 'fake' pressure, march back to his base (you are forced to make zerglings instead of drones) and then you're royally screwed for late game if the T decides to in base CC and use wallin to defend your zerglings that you must do damage with. This is my personal opinion but I can see why ret/idra both are so firm on their stance with 14hatching (vs T). Because at the pro level, if you early pool, you place the ball into the T's hands. If they play their cards right, you'll be in such a disadvantage entering mid/late game. However, if you 14 hatch, you bring the ball back into the Z's court. 'You want to try 2rax, well then i'll 14hatch, COME GET ME!!' Essentially, the Z is forcing it to come down to micro, in which whoever is better at microing, will come out ahead or, in a few cases, win the game. Against P, I think early pool builds become more viable because 1. probes can't march across the map and build a bunker in your face 2. if they cannon rush, you don't have to deal with marines. all you gotta do is scout and denyt the cannon rush 3. if they send zealots + all probes to all in = lol NO MULES wut. 4. most imporantly, early lings means you can abuse advantage that comes with zerglings > zealots in small numbers It really comes down to personal preference in ZvP. Do you want to break your P opponent mentally (ie fuck with his mind and early pool/speedling/etc.) or are you more of a read and react/type macro player? I have no emperical data to base all this on but I would just like to add some input  This is very convoluted logic... So the weakness of the build is the ability to make too many lings? That doesn't make sense. And how is the 14 Hatch build surviving without having to make lings? This argument being repeated again and again just isn't thought through at all. People assume that terran is going 2rax and not attacking, and the idiot Zerg is just mindlessly pumping zerglings all game? How about putting down a couple spines and working towards banelings? I never heard ret or Idra make this argument. I don't know where it was heard or what context it was heard in. But the notion that one build is forced to build lings and the other isn't just doesn't make sense. Are you thinking that the 11 pool doesn't have an expansion? I don't get it at all honestly... Could someone please explain this to me so I can properly respond to all the people claiming that hatch first is safer against 2rax? Everything I read in the previous thread operated on the flawed assumption that pool first is for some reason forced to keep making lings. I just don't get it honestly... 100% agree with everything inflexion said. against terran 14 hatch is better for exactly the reasons he listed. on some maps this just isnt feasible so i 11pool there. 14 hatch u can plant a spine crawler asap. it might not finish but it will distract his forces long enough for yours to pop. a spine in your main is avoidable, a spine by the ramp is not. not to mention when the first queen inject pops you can make a lot of lings+nat larva too. if he was expoing during the attack and retreats and your nat is still up then you are at worst equal if not ahead (assuming he doesnt get past your ramp). on some maps you can make roaches that are so larva effecient you can make tons of drones too. against toss i am leaning towards 11pool as my standard. it feels like if he does choose to rush i am better prepared to handle it. 14pool/16 hatch feels late to me, and the 18 hatch when u 11pool is not that bad. against zerg i 11pool the majority of my games because it eats 6-7-8 pools easily. I still don't see what the argument is... I doesn't make sense to me. The only thing that has made sense in this whole argument is "you can get an earlier spine." Is that what the whole argument comes down to? I must be missing something here because inflexion didn't even mention spines in his argument... I'm still hoping someone can make sense of this for me. how does what he says about 11pool in the face of marine pressure not make sense? if u 11 pool and he feigns pressure, making u make lings, u are behind. if u 14 hatch and defend u are at worst equal. any other scenario u are ahead. 14 hatch is better economically then 11 pool, yes? if u can get away with 14 hatch, and in fact it is easier to hold, why wouldnt u do that? feigning pressure can be a cascade effect, decreasing drone/mineral count and delaying the second hatch. i would rather the marine rush battle take place at my nat instead of in my main where buildings and overlords are floating around. creep spread means bunkers must be placed further away (out of marine range of the hatch). the spine is also key. 1 spine will basically negate his entire rush if it finishes or buy u time for lings to pop, something an 11 pool does not have the option of at all. you can search for the thread about ret's comments on this issue on tl. So the problem is that you guys believe zerg is on one base with the 11Pool... This is not the case. Zerg has an expo up in the 11Pool build as well. Also, you cannot assume the 11 Pool is producing more lings than the 14 Hatch due to feigning pressure. Why not assume that both builds are responding with the same zergling production? an 18 hatch will be ~halfway done when marines arrive. that is not helpful. the difference in zergling production is that on 2 hatch's you can afford to make lings and drones, on 1 hatch you dont have enough larva for both. even worse is the situation where u 11 pool and make drones, only to see marines on the way. u are fucked. with a second hatch u have more wiggle room. in ladder games i actually feel safer 14 hatching. i know he is bringing marines to punish my hatch. when u 11pool u set yourself up for the situation where he scouts the 11 pool and then punishes whatever your decision was - if u made lings he macros, if u made drones he marine rushes. i dont like being in that position.
So now the argument changes again.... Now the argument is "you have less larvae with 11Pool."
I'm sorry, but this isn't a defendable statement imo.
|
I provided my own testing, in the other thread (which you ridiculed without apparently reading), showing 13p15h to be superior both in resources and larva count.
Given that my testing methodology is *far* more consistent and reliable than yours, due to the fact that the AI executing the build order executes exactly what its told to exactly *when* it's told to, and given that my experience developing that AI demonstrated that very small differences can make a significant difference in the final resource count (the only thing I can think of that would cause the 70-80 mineral difference I was seeing between individual runs on identical AI), I don't believe the burden of proof is actually on me.
I believe it's back on you.
But hey, look, I can display graphs proving my point too. Crosspost from the other thread where we're actually trying to get at the truth rather than just waving our hands and saying "I've already posted a replay showing X is better than Y" without admitting that the replay came from a very fallible source (a person).
Resource graph comparing 14h15p, 14h14p, 13p15h, and 11p18h, using the AI to execute the build order in a way that is completely consistent and repeatable, and recording data every 10 seconds.
![[image loading]](http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/9297/resourcegraph.th.png)
See that blue line below all the others? Yeah, that's you.
There's my evidence, as well as reasonable arguments about possible flaws in *your* evidence that aren't present in mine.
Your court.
|
On December 11 2010 11:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:
So now the argument changes again.... Now the argument is "you have less larvae with 11Pool."
I'm sorry, but this isn't a defendable statement imo.
This one I'll be more than happy to defend you on. 11p18h generates just as much larva as 14h15p, and is even going to be slightly ahead until both queens kick in for the 14h build, which takes quite a long time.
13p15h seems to have a larva advantage over both though.
|
On December 11 2010 11:06 Skrag wrote:I provided my own testing, in the other thread (which you ridiculed without apparently reading), showing 13p15h to be superior both in resources and larva count. Given that my testing methodology is *far* more consistent and reliable than yours, due to the fact that the AI executing the build order executes exactly what its told to exactly *when* it's told to, and given that my experience developing that AI demonstrated that very small differences can make a significant difference in the final resource count (the only thing I can think of that would cause the 70-80 mineral difference I was seeing between individual runs on identical AI), I don't believe the burden of proof is actually on me. I believe it's back on you. But hey, look, I can display graphs proving my point too. Crosspost from the other thread where we're actually trying to get at the truth rather than just waving our hands and saying "I've already posted a replay showing X is better than Y" without admitting that the replay came from a very fallible source (a person). Resource graph comparing 14h15p, 14h14p, 13p15h, and 11p18h, using the AI to execute the build order in a way that is completely consistent and repeatable, and recording data every 10 seconds. See that blue line below all the others? Yeah, that's you.
The difference is, I have to rely on your "AI" for all the testing. I can't even look up the results myself, because you have provided no replays. There is no chart even documenting the data points. I don't know how you recorded the results either...
I'm sorry, but I rejected the results from these 3rd party programs long ago. That was the point of my original thread to begin with, because all the theory crafting came from programs that turned out to be wrong.
|
If you had the map, and knew how to use it to switch between the different orders, you'd be able to look up the results yourself. Data was recorded every 10 seconds, *exactly* on the second. (yeah, I can do that when I'm basing stuff on triggers, which is another thing about my data that is much more precise than yours, since I don't have to hope that my pause timing was spot-on. your timing might be good, but I guarantee it's not 1/256th of a second good).
The value shown is the amount of resources collected, and should correspond exactly to how many total resources are missing from all the mineral patches. I would have done the "spent + current" method that's been used in this thread to keep the numbers consistent, but while the game is in progress, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to access how much has been spent, and it was easier to just spit out what was already there.
I was right along with you in rejecting the results from build order calculators, because they simply don't reflect reality.
But this is not theorycraft, and it's not a "third party program". It's a very simple AI playing the same game you are, doing the same things, only doing them better and more consistently because I told it to have a 4k APM.
|
On December 11 2010 11:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 11:06 Skrag wrote:I provided my own testing, in the other thread (which you ridiculed without apparently reading), showing 13p15h to be superior both in resources and larva count. Given that my testing methodology is *far* more consistent and reliable than yours, due to the fact that the AI executing the build order executes exactly what its told to exactly *when* it's told to, and given that my experience developing that AI demonstrated that very small differences can make a significant difference in the final resource count (the only thing I can think of that would cause the 70-80 mineral difference I was seeing between individual runs on identical AI), I don't believe the burden of proof is actually on me. I believe it's back on you. But hey, look, I can display graphs proving my point too. Crosspost from the other thread where we're actually trying to get at the truth rather than just waving our hands and saying "I've already posted a replay showing X is better than Y" without admitting that the replay came from a very fallible source (a person). Resource graph comparing 14h15p, 14h14p, 13p15h, and 11p18h, using the AI to execute the build order in a way that is completely consistent and repeatable, and recording data every 10 seconds. See that blue line below all the others? Yeah, that's you. The difference is, I have to rely on your "AI" for all the testing. I can't even look up the results myself, because you have provided no replays. There is no chart even documenting the data points. I don't know how you recorded the results either... I'm sorry, but I rejected the results from these 3rd party programs long ago. That was the point of my original thread to begin with, because all the theory crafting came from programs that turned out to be wrong.
FWIW he's talking about using in game AI via triggers and scripts not a 3rd party program like any of the build order optimizers, there also appears to be replays for all of the tests but as they are many layers of spoilers nested into the OP it's forgivable if you didn't see them.
Reposting it here with slightly different formatting
13 Pool 15 Hatch
AI Test
Minerals: 5232.5
Larva: 59.78
Pool Finish: 2:50
Hatch Finish: 4:13
Build Order
+ Show Spoiler +# Startup Build Delay = 3 Seconds
9 Overlord
13 Spawning Pool
15 Hatchery, then transfer 3 drones (19 seconds lost)
14 Queen
17 Overlord
21 Spawn Larvae
21 Queen
23 Overlord
30 Spawn Larvae
31 Spawn Larvae
31 Overlord
38 Spawn Larvae
44 Spawn Larvae
44 Overlord
Skrag Results
+ Show Spoiler +0:00 report: 0 0 6 10 6 6.00 0 0
0:10 report: 30 0 7 10 6 6.58 2 0
0:20 report: 70 0 8 10 7 7.38 2 0
0:30 report: 120 0 9 10 7 8.19 2 0
0:40 report: 180 0 9 10 8 8.81 2 0
0:50 report: 230 0 9 10 9 9.00 2 0
1:00 report: 300 0 10 10 9 9.45 2 0
1:10 report: 365 0 12 18 10 10.05 0 0
1:20 report: 430 0 13 18 10 11.49 0 0
1:30 report: 505 0 13 18 12 12.85 1 0
1:40 report: 590 0 13 18 13 13.00 1 0
1:50 report: 675 0 13 18 12 12.25 1 0
2:00 report: 765 0 14 18 12 13.32 1 0
2:10 report: 850 0 15 18 14 14.58 0 0
2:20 report: 950 0 15 18 15 15.00 1 0
2:30 report: 1050 0 15 18 15 15.00 2 0
2:40 report: 1145 0 14 18 14 14.00 2 0
2:50 report: 1250 0 17 18 14 14.04 2 0
3:00 report: 1355 0 17 18 14 14.63 1 0
3:10 report: 1450 0 18 18 15 15.35 1 0
3:20 report: 1565 0 18 18 15 15.93 2 0
3:30 report: 1670 0 20 26 16 16.60 0 0
3:40 report: 1785 0 23 26 16 18.10 0 3.5625
3:50 report: 1900 0 23 26 18 18.91 0 13.5625
4:00 report: 2020 0 23 26 19 19.00 0 23.5625
4:10 report: 2135 0 24 26 19 19.32 0 33.5625
4:20 report: 2255 0 29 36 19 20.73 0 0
4:30 report: 2375 0 31 36 21 24.42 0 12.375
4:40 report: 2515 0 31 36 26 26.84 0 32.375
4:50 report: 2645 0 32 36 27 27.54 0 52.375
5:00 report: 2815 0 34 36 28 28.78 0 72.375
5:10 report: 2995 0 42 44 29 31.81 0 4.625
5:20 report: 3180 0 43 44 32 37.14 0 22.9375
5:30 report: 3385 0 44 44 39 39.41 1 42.9375
5:40 report: 3620 0 46 52 39 40.47 0 62.9375
5:50 report: 3850 0 51 52 40 42.66 0 38.5
6:00 report: 4095 0 52 52 43 46.29 5 14.5
Started Spawning Pool at 101.25
Started Hatchery at 150.625
Finished Spawning Pool at 166.188
Finished Hatchery at 250.625
Build Order Tester
+ Show Spoiler +4,954 minerals at 6:19
Pool Finish: 2:42
Hatch Finish: 4:07
Replay Example
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-172846.jpg)
|
I'm just going to leave my 2 cents. I personally find that an earlier hatch is much more useful. If they try to do a push around 20 supply, then you have the hatch up, and probably a spine crawler building there, as well as a queen building. If you did 11 overpool into 18 hatch, then your second hatch isn't even close to finishing. It becomes a liability. The queen in your main will have a hard time trying to defend, since it has 0 mobility. Your lings will be a bit slower without the creep spread, and you have no spine crawlers coming up at your natural. Yes, you do have more defenses at your main, but trying to one-base as zerg won't work out very well. 11 overpool does have more larvae earlier on, but if you spend too many of them on lings, then you fall behind economically compared to 14 hatch. Assuming that you do 11 overpool, 16 queen, 18 hatch, 17 OL, you have around 4-6 lings to try and defend your natural, which is not enough against any marine scv pressure.
|
For future reference, I want this thread to be a place where people who agree on the merits of this build can post their experiences, replays, variations, and suggestions. Anyone who doesn't agree with the data posted in the OP should leave this thread alone and go try their luck in this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174374
I think the economy debates are pretty much at an end here, with some favoring programs and some favoring replays. This is the place for those who favor the empirical data. Please, do not post in this thread any longer if you are still splitting hairs with regard to economy. Please do not post arguments that rely on the assumption that this build is behind. It has been days since I posted the replays and I haven't seen anyone beat the posted results, so hopefully we are done with that.
I really wish the people who like this build and use this build would post here. I get plenty of PM's on TL and in-game. Please come back to the thread now that we are getting past the endless debates. I want to see your games and hear your ideas. If you have seen any other high-level players using or discussing this build, I'd like to get the input. Thanks everyone.
|
So there you go. A replay showing a 13p15h that is a full 150 minerals ahead of your 11p18h at the 6 minute mark, because Jacobman is > me, and knows how to set it up so you can automatically download the map to watch the replay.
My AI does quite a bit better than that even, because I spent a lot more time trying to make sure everything was as optimal and consistent as possible, and doing things like spitting all the relevant data to a file as the game was progressing, and not as much time trying to equally represent all the different builds.
|
On December 11 2010 08:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 08:19 Blueblister wrote:I thought this build was kinda interesting so I made a Liquipedia entry for it:  11 Overpool 16 Queen. Please help me with updating the article. It specifically lacks build-order counters, map (dis)advantages and replays. A practical build order continuation after the queen pops is also wanted I would appreciate this more if it didn't include statements that are still being debated and have little evidence to back them up. Cuts drones early? When, how many, and for how long? Lower mineral count? When, how much, and for how long? Taking gas is more costly? How and why? Spine crawler is more expensive? What? And why are we claiming this build is countered by zealot pressure? Has this been tested and posted even once? I've read this entire thread through and I've never seen one replay of this build losing to zealot pressure. I wish we wouldn't just make baseless claims like this, especially in the liquipedia... I even went to the trouble of posting replays and a graph to try and show the first two points are wrong. No one has submitted data that can counter this data, since no one has been able to surpass the results I posted in the OP with any kind of 14 pool build. Until we have some actual evidence to back up these claims, I think we should hold off on creating an opening page.
Well, I have to start somewhere. Right?
I liked the build you provided in the OP and just wanted to help the community by making an article covering an interesting opening. If this is the response to expect for making an effort then I would rather not have posted here the first place. I wanted to add lot of info as for the article to be as interesting as possible. You can't expect an entry to be perfect by its very first draft.
With that being said, if anyone's interested in my reasoning behind the things you pointed out above then please see below:
+ Show Spoiler +- Cutting drones early
Yes, although the "cutting drones early" part is true, it may not be important enough to have it's own point in the Liquipedia entry.
You cut half a drone when supply-blocked, loose 1 drone when making the Pool and then postpone Drone production temporarily while making the Pool. This means you're behind in drones until getting a Queen out or the FE starts morphing its own Pool and Hatch. I don't know when the OPQ catches up and eventually pulls ahead but the higher larva count is noted in pros.
- Lower mineral count
It's because of the 11 OverPool 16 Queen is a "tighter build", which leaves less wiggle-room. Extractor trick costs minerals. The early Spawning Pool is also a sunken mineral cost of 200.
- Gas being more costly
More costly in OPQ is because FE builds does not have these sunken costs up until around 14 supply. By postponing the Pool or Hatchery you can opt to go for earlier gas in the 11-16 supply range without cutting Drone production. As the 11 OverPool build have already made the decision of when to place the pool for you, any gas will either postpone the Queen or cut into Drones, which will be more costly compared to a FE which has yet to commit. Spine crawlers being more costly is debatable as they cannot be made before pool finishes, should probably be removed.
- Please help with updating counters
I appealed for updates of the counters section in my original post, please make edits. Me evaluating Zealot pressure as being good is mainly because of what kcdc said. A later hatch spreads creep later rendering the Z unable to use the Queen for defense. There should be a timing window here, just don't know how "hard" the counter is.
- Logical reasoning
True, I haven't posted replays to support any of the things written down in the Liquipedia article. That doesn't mean a theoretical argument doesn't hold water. If the theoretical argument is backed up by logic and reasoning, then it actually is valid.
|
On December 11 2010 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:For future reference, I want this thread to be a place where people who agree on the merits of this build can post their experiences, replays, variations, and suggestions. Anyone who doesn't agree with the data posted in the OP should leave this thread alone and go try their luck in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174374I think the economy debates are pretty much at an end here, with some favoring programs and some favoring replays. This is the place for those who favor the empirical data. Please, do not post in this thread any longer if you are still splitting hairs with regard to economy. Please do not post arguments that rely on the assumption that this build is behind. It has been days since I posted the replays and I haven't seen anyone beat the posted results, so hopefully we are done with that. I really wish the people who like this build and use this build would post here. I get plenty of PM's on TL and in-game. Please come back to the thread now that we are getting past the endless debates. I want to see your games and hear your ideas. If you have seen any other high-level players using or discussing this build, I'd like to get the input. Thanks everyone.
LOOOOOLLLLLOOOLOLOLOLOL
You have provided information in this thread that appears to be incorrect (claiming that 11pool is economically superior to any other pool-first build, which doesn't appear to be true), and have flamed or ridiculed everybody who questioned you on this point at any turn.
Now that there's a replay showing you being behind, we're just supposed to leave? We're "splitting hairs" when you've made extremely vehement claims that 11pool is superior economically to everything else? After you came over into a thread where we're actually trying to get at the truth rather than blindly defend and ridiculed our efforts?
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHA
Watch the replay Jaeger just posted. 150 minerals is not "splitting hairs". Especially not when you've been so generous with the flamethrower at anybody who even suggested that 11pool would be economically behind other builds.
|
god, it's just so classic.
YOU: "You're using a third party program."
ME: It's not a third party program, it's the same game you're playing
YOU: "But I can't see it, there's no replay for me to verify your results"
ME: Well shit, you're right. You have to have the map to see replays.
JAEGER: here's the replay. (which I didn't realize had been posted, or that could even *be* posted in a way that it would automatically download the map)
YOU: Stop splitting hairs. Leave please.
God. I sooooooo wish somebody other than you would have posted this thread, because there are very real advantages to the 11pool build, and the economic disadvantages aren't *nearly* as bad as most people would assume. But by being a jackass and flaming everybody and their dog, you have cluttered this thread with so much useless bullshit that somebody actually felt like they had to create a completely separate thread in an attempt to actually get at the truth.
|
Guys, the replay is garbage. I can't even see the mineral count... Please just leave my thread alone and go bash my build in your own thread. This is just a waste of time.
|
On December 11 2010 11:43 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Guys, the replay is garbage. I can't even see the mineral count... Please just leave my thread alone and go bash my build in your own thread. This is just a waste of time.
WTF?
I just *watched* the replay, which is how I could see that it was 150 minerals ahead of you, and other people have watched it as well. I didn't have jacob's map previous to watching the replay, so now you have to be just making shit up.
And I'm not bashing your build. I'm bashing you, for making statements that are now provably incorrect (and that NEED TO BE CORRECTED for anybody considering using this build, because you should actually be fully informed of what the tradeoffs you're making are, instead of blindly claiming that there simply are none), and for being a jackass to anybody who questions you on them.
|
On December 11 2010 11:44 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 11:43 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Guys, the replay is garbage. I can't even see the mineral count... Please just leave my thread alone and go bash my build in your own thread. This is just a waste of time. WTF? I just *watched* the replay, which is how I could see that it was 150 minerals ahead of you. I don't have jacob's map, so now you have to be just making shit up. And I'm not bashing your build. I'm bashing you, for making statements that are now provably incorrect, and for being a jackass to anybody who questions you on them.
I ran the replay and it was at 50 minerals for the entire time.
Again, for the last time, please stop trolling my thread and just go away already.
|
JD, they proved your build is worse than theirs, accept it, move on. You lost. Your testing has way too much human error, GIVE UP ALREADY.
And if you can't see mineral counts in a replay, I feel terribly sorry for you.
|
On December 11 2010 11:47 ch33psh33p wrote:
JD, they proved your build is worse than theirs, accept it, move on. You lost. Your testing has way too much human error, GIVE UP ALREADY.
And if you can't see mineral counts in a replay, I feel terribly sorry for you.
The mineral count is 50 all game long... I'm not making this shit up. If you want to bash me, I don't give a damn just leave my thread please.
|
On December 11 2010 11:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 11:44 Skrag wrote:On December 11 2010 11:43 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Guys, the replay is garbage. I can't even see the mineral count... Please just leave my thread alone and go bash my build in your own thread. This is just a waste of time. WTF? I just *watched* the replay, which is how I could see that it was 150 minerals ahead of you. I don't have jacob's map, so now you have to be just making shit up. And I'm not bashing your build. I'm bashing you, for making statements that are now provably incorrect, and for being a jackass to anybody who questions you on them. I ran the replay and it was at 50 minerals for the entire time. Again, for the last time, please stop trolling my thread and just go away already.
Did you maybe consider switching to the ZERG PLAYER in the game? When the replay starts, you're locked to Razer's point of view, and have to select "Everyone" before you can click on the zerg units and see the zerg minerals. And yeah, the protoss player sticks at 50 minerals the entire game, because he's watching the AI, not actually playing.
Or did you maybe open the actual resources tab? Or the spending tab?
Jesus.
The only one trolling here is you.
|
On December 11 2010 11:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 11:47 ch33psh33p wrote:
JD, they proved your build is worse than theirs, accept it, move on. You lost. Your testing has way too much human error, GIVE UP ALREADY.
And if you can't see mineral counts in a replay, I feel terribly sorry for you. The mineral count is 50 all game long... I'm not making this shit up. If you want to bash me, I don't give a damn just leave my thread please.
Again, learn to watch a replay.
Thanks for proving my point.
|
I know Skrag isn't messing around so you probably should look at what he says, JD.
TL is a place of discussion where everyone contributes for the making of better players. As far as I'm concerned, you posted something in this forum and we are all entitled to comment about it.
You cannot just say "this thread is for everyone that agrees with me" because there will be no discussion about the weakness of your build.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img805.imageshack.us/i/resourcegraph.png/)
