|
On December 13 2010 05:09 Kiarip wrote:
2 rax doesn't sacrifice any terran economy except for a slightly later orbital (by like 1 SCV.)
In order to keep up with the marine production of 2 rax you need to build only lings from 1 hatchery, so terran gets ahead in SCVs by a ton. then they'll push with a good amount of scvs right before your first larva injection turns into lings, and block your ramp with bunkers, and that's pretty much game.
Larvae from the first inject come in at just after 4 minutes. From what I'm hearing, and what I've seen in the one replay that's been posted showing trouble vs 4rax (which was a hatch-first build, not an 11pool), the attack doesn't come until 4:30-ish. If you've decided to turn those larvae into lings, they'll already be out. Admittedly, turning that first inject into lings will temporarily put you behind in eco, but as I've been saying this entire thread, if that's what's necessary to hold it off, then that's what's necessary, period. The fact that you *can* do it with 11 pool is a bonus, not a detriment.
|
On December 13 2010 05:09 Kiarip wrote:
2 rax doesn't sacrifice any terran economy except for a slightly later orbital (by like 1 SCV.)
In order to keep up with the marine production of 2 rax you need to build only lings from 1 hatchery, so terran gets ahead in SCVs by a ton. then they'll push with a good amount of scvs right before your first larva injection turns into lings, and block your ramp with bunkers, and that's pretty much game.
What is the definition of keeping up with marine production off 2 rax? 2 rax should allow terran to produce at a rate or roughly 5 marines per minute. A hatchery with a queen can produce about 10 larva per minute. Are you saying you need a 4:1 ratio of zergling to marine?
|
On December 13 2010 01:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
People will take my skepticism as fanaticism, or take it as me being as asshole... Honestly I'm just trying to protect the integrity and the quality of this thread. Once someone provides something we can actually see and work with, then we can continue the debate regarding 2rax pressure.
Can I just say that you are actually my hero. If I could have babies with you, I would.
On December 13 2010 05:09 Kiarip wrote:
2 rax doesn't sacrifice any terran economy except for a slightly later orbital (by like 1 SCV.)
In order to keep up with the marine production of 2 rax you need to build only lings from 1 hatchery, so terran gets ahead in SCVs by a ton. then they'll push with a good amount of scvs right before your first larva injection turns into lings, and block your ramp with bunkers, and that's pretty much game.
Your post has NOTHING to do with this particular build. It applies to EVERY SINGLE zerg build apart from perhaps a 14 or 15 hatch with mass spinecrawlers at the fast hatch. By your logic, Z can NEVER beat 2 rax.
There is simply no way that a T can have marines in bunkers before your expo is up with this build. As demonstrated by the second replay on the first page which shows the build against a well executed 2rax, it isn't that difficult to fend off a 2-rax without sacrificing your economy too much.
|
On December 11 2010 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This isn't about fighting for the build, or what makes sense to you "logically." I have a replay right in the OP which is better than the results you guys are using to formulate arguments. Unless you think I somehow cheated the replay, then you need to use the better of the results. Or just pick the numbers that best help your argument I guess...
These sorts of comments are why so many people get pissed off in this thread.
As I understand it, you've now acknowledged that 11 pool does sacrifice some early minerals because it delays a few drones. So why would continue to act like it's not true, belittling that fact as something that "makes sense to [me] 'logically,'" and insisting that your data is superior the trials I and others have conducted?
The thrust of this thread seems to be, "11 pool gets you an earlier pool, an earlier queen, and sacrifices nothing economically, so why wouldn't you use it all the time?" If the 11 pool does make economic sacrificies, that greatly changes the argument.
A lot of us would just like you to plainly acknowledge that there are economic trade-offs associated with an 11 overpool.
|
On December 13 2010 05:44 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This isn't about fighting for the build, or what makes sense to you "logically." I have a replay right in the OP which is better than the results you guys are using to formulate arguments. Unless you think I somehow cheated the replay, then you need to use the better of the results. Or just pick the numbers that best help your argument I guess... These sorts of comments are why so many people get pissed off in this thread. As I understand it, you've now acknowledged that 11 pool does sacrifice some early minerals because it delays a few drones. So why would continue to act like it's not true, belittling that fact as something that "makes sense to [me] 'logically,'" and insisting that your data is superior the trials I and others have conducted? The thrust of this thread seems to be, "11 pool gets you an earlier pool, an earlier queen, and sacrifices nothing economically, so why wouldn't you use it all the time?" If the 11 pool does make economic sacrificies, that greatly changes the argument. A lot of us would just like you to plainly acknowledge that there are economic trade-offs associated with an 11 overpool.
So long as my mineral count was higher than anything provided by anyone else's results, then my data was necessarily superior. Why would I accept inferior testing results as a basis for argument? That doesn't even make sense.
|
On December 13 2010 05:44 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This isn't about fighting for the build, or what makes sense to you "logically." I have a replay right in the OP which is better than the results you guys are using to formulate arguments. Unless you think I somehow cheated the replay, then you need to use the better of the results. Or just pick the numbers that best help your argument I guess... These sorts of comments are why so many people get pissed off in this thread. As I understand it, you've now acknowledged that 11 pool does sacrifice some early minerals because it delays a few drones. So why would continue to act like it's not true, belittling that fact as something that "makes sense to [me] 'logically,'" and insisting that your data is superior the trials I and others have conducted? The thrust of this thread seems to be, "11 pool gets you an earlier pool, an earlier queen, and sacrifices nothing economically, so why wouldn't you use it all the time?" If the 11 pool does make economic sacrificies, that greatly changes the argument. A lot of us would just like you to plainly acknowledge that there are economic trade-offs associated with an 11 overpool.
lol, is there another thread that you're talking to jd on? The quote you are responding to is so old.
|
On December 13 2010 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 05:44 kcdc wrote:On December 11 2010 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This isn't about fighting for the build, or what makes sense to you "logically." I have a replay right in the OP which is better than the results you guys are using to formulate arguments. Unless you think I somehow cheated the replay, then you need to use the better of the results. Or just pick the numbers that best help your argument I guess... These sorts of comments are why so many people get pissed off in this thread. As I understand it, you've now acknowledged that 11 pool does sacrifice some early minerals because it delays a few drones. So why would continue to act like it's not true, belittling that fact as something that "makes sense to [me] 'logically,'" and insisting that your data is superior the trials I and others have conducted? The thrust of this thread seems to be, "11 pool gets you an earlier pool, an earlier queen, and sacrifices nothing economically, so why wouldn't you use it all the time?" If the 11 pool does make economic sacrificies, that greatly changes the argument. A lot of us would just like you to plainly acknowledge that there are economic trade-offs associated with an 11 overpool. So long as my mineral count was higher than anything provided by anyone else's results, then my data was necessarily superior. Why would I accept inferior testing results as a basis for argument? That doesn't even make sense.
Are you still asserting that 11 pool is the most economic pool first build?
kcdc does have a point. Unless you're disagreeing with the data that I've been posting, you're OP is quite misleading when it talks about economic matters. I understand that you're trying to make progress with the build, which is fine, since the build has good potential, but the way you describe the economy of the build in the first post does seem misleading.
|
On December 13 2010 06:14 jacobman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 13 2010 05:44 kcdc wrote:On December 11 2010 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This isn't about fighting for the build, or what makes sense to you "logically." I have a replay right in the OP which is better than the results you guys are using to formulate arguments. Unless you think I somehow cheated the replay, then you need to use the better of the results. Or just pick the numbers that best help your argument I guess... These sorts of comments are why so many people get pissed off in this thread. As I understand it, you've now acknowledged that 11 pool does sacrifice some early minerals because it delays a few drones. So why would continue to act like it's not true, belittling that fact as something that "makes sense to [me] 'logically,'" and insisting that your data is superior the trials I and others have conducted? The thrust of this thread seems to be, "11 pool gets you an earlier pool, an earlier queen, and sacrifices nothing economically, so why wouldn't you use it all the time?" If the 11 pool does make economic sacrificies, that greatly changes the argument. A lot of us would just like you to plainly acknowledge that there are economic trade-offs associated with an 11 overpool. So long as my mineral count was higher than anything provided by anyone else's results, then my data was necessarily superior. Why would I accept inferior testing results as a basis for argument? That doesn't even make sense. Are you still asserting that 11 pool is the most economic pool first build? kcdc does have a point. Unless you're disagreeing with the data that I've been posting, you're OP is quite misleading when it talks about economic matters. I understand that you're trying to make progress with the build, which is fine, since the build has good potential, but the way you describe the economy of the build in the first post does seem misleading.
I said that as soon as you or skrag provided a rep of the 11Pool using the same AI-scripting technique as the 13 Pool then I would update the data in the OP.
I didn't want to update until both tests had the same method of analysis.
|
On December 13 2010 06:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 06:14 jacobman wrote:On December 13 2010 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 13 2010 05:44 kcdc wrote:On December 11 2010 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This isn't about fighting for the build, or what makes sense to you "logically." I have a replay right in the OP which is better than the results you guys are using to formulate arguments. Unless you think I somehow cheated the replay, then you need to use the better of the results. Or just pick the numbers that best help your argument I guess... These sorts of comments are why so many people get pissed off in this thread. As I understand it, you've now acknowledged that 11 pool does sacrifice some early minerals because it delays a few drones. So why would continue to act like it's not true, belittling that fact as something that "makes sense to [me] 'logically,'" and insisting that your data is superior the trials I and others have conducted? The thrust of this thread seems to be, "11 pool gets you an earlier pool, an earlier queen, and sacrifices nothing economically, so why wouldn't you use it all the time?" If the 11 pool does make economic sacrificies, that greatly changes the argument. A lot of us would just like you to plainly acknowledge that there are economic trade-offs associated with an 11 overpool. So long as my mineral count was higher than anything provided by anyone else's results, then my data was necessarily superior. Why would I accept inferior testing results as a basis for argument? That doesn't even make sense. Are you still asserting that 11 pool is the most economic pool first build? kcdc does have a point. Unless you're disagreeing with the data that I've been posting, you're OP is quite misleading when it talks about economic matters. I understand that you're trying to make progress with the build, which is fine, since the build has good potential, but the way you describe the economy of the build in the first post does seem misleading. I said that as soon as you or skrag provided a rep of the 11Pool using the same AI-scripting technique as the 13 Pool then I would update the data in the OP. I didn't want to update until both tests had the same method of analysis.
Oh, I missed when you said that. I actually posted a replay of the AI running the 11 pool days ago. I ran each build 5 times too and posted the results as the average.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174374
If the replay for the 11 pool doesn't work for you let me know. I published the map I ran it on a while ago and I've done a lot of shuffling since you can only publish 10 maps. I'm not sure if that will cause you issues downloading the map with the AI script.
Also of note, none of the replays I've posted have been the best replay that I have. I just plucked one of the replays of the 5 trials I did randomly. The only reason I put replays up was so that the AI execution could be analyzed, in case I typed something up wrong in the script by accident.
|
On December 13 2010 06:22 jacobman wrote:
Oh, I missed when you said that. I actually posted a replay of the AI running the 11 pool days ago. I ran each build 5 times too and posted the results as the average.
*shrug*
I told him right after he asked that the rep was up in the other thread, and even quoted the final numbers for him.
Either he wasn't paying attention, or just really wanted to ignore the results.
|
On December 13 2010 06:29 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 06:22 jacobman wrote:
Oh, I missed when you said that. I actually posted a replay of the AI running the 11 pool days ago. I ran each build 5 times too and posted the results as the average.
*shrug* I told him right after he asked that the rep was up in the other thread, and even quoted the final numbers for him. Either he wasn't paying attention, or just really wanted to ignore the results.
It is was easy to stop paying attention to your posts once you started getting emotional and insulting me repeatedly. You are firmly cemented in my mind as a troll since you continue to flame me without provocation on a public forum and refuse to apologize for your insults and name-calling.
Grow up already...
|
What is the definition of keeping up with marine production off 2 rax? 2 rax should allow terran to produce at a rate or roughly 5 marines per minute. A hatchery with a queen can produce about 10 larva per minute. Are you saying you need a 4:1 ratio of zergling to marine?
Talking about without the inject larva.
Yes if you go for 11 pool or 10 pool you can get a queen early enough so that you can build enough zerglings, but the problem is that he scouts your build early, and once he sees early pool he just keeps building marines and you're forced to keep building lings which delays your 2nd hatch, your gas, your speed upgrade, lair, and etc. Meanwhile he can get a second CC on 2 raxes and just put up bunkers, and you're left with a bunch of lings and under 20 drones
|
Used 12-pool vs diamond 1900-2300 players today, went 10-2, was winning a great deal in both games I lost. I think it's great. Once a T blocked my nat with a super fast ebay but I got it down easily with my fast lings, same thing happened once with a pylon. Vs Zerg it is amazing as well if you're going for the Roach opening.
I played vs 2rax twice and both times it was a non-issue. It might be that the 2150 and 2300 point players just sucked horribly, but I just made like 16 slow lings with one crawler and they backed off right away, and after that speed kicked in and I could get baneling nest and spam drones. I don't think it's a problem I periodically have less workers, since I'll be able to replace them extremely easily and rapidly.
Got from 1700 to 1950 diamond today, hopefully it'll continue like this and I'll get to play vs even better players. ^_^ I really want to see what kind of a 2-rax can pressure a 12pool, since you get your first set of spawn larvae when the Terran has 3-5 marines out.
|
On December 13 2010 06:10 jacobman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 05:44 kcdc wrote:On December 11 2010 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This isn't about fighting for the build, or what makes sense to you "logically." I have a replay right in the OP which is better than the results you guys are using to formulate arguments. Unless you think I somehow cheated the replay, then you need to use the better of the results. Or just pick the numbers that best help your argument I guess... These sorts of comments are why so many people get pissed off in this thread. As I understand it, you've now acknowledged that 11 pool does sacrifice some early minerals because it delays a few drones. So why would continue to act like it's not true, belittling that fact as something that "makes sense to [me] 'logically,'" and insisting that your data is superior the trials I and others have conducted? The thrust of this thread seems to be, "11 pool gets you an earlier pool, an earlier queen, and sacrifices nothing economically, so why wouldn't you use it all the time?" If the 11 pool does make economic sacrificies, that greatly changes the argument. A lot of us would just like you to plainly acknowledge that there are economic trade-offs associated with an 11 overpool. lol, is there another thread that you're talking to jd on? The quote you are responding to is so old.
I can't quite tell where jd stands on whether slowing drone production at 11 food to get an earlier pool sacrifices some early minerals. It seems plainly obvious to me that it does, but I still haven't seen him flatly acknowledge as much.
The thread is quite long, and it's possible that I've missed that acknowledgement. If so, I apologize for bringing this up again, although it'd be nice if that issue could be made more clear in the OP.
|
On December 13 2010 07:33 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 06:10 jacobman wrote:On December 13 2010 05:44 kcdc wrote:On December 11 2010 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This isn't about fighting for the build, or what makes sense to you "logically." I have a replay right in the OP which is better than the results you guys are using to formulate arguments. Unless you think I somehow cheated the replay, then you need to use the better of the results. Or just pick the numbers that best help your argument I guess... These sorts of comments are why so many people get pissed off in this thread. As I understand it, you've now acknowledged that 11 pool does sacrifice some early minerals because it delays a few drones. So why would continue to act like it's not true, belittling that fact as something that "makes sense to [me] 'logically,'" and insisting that your data is superior the trials I and others have conducted? The thrust of this thread seems to be, "11 pool gets you an earlier pool, an earlier queen, and sacrifices nothing economically, so why wouldn't you use it all the time?" If the 11 pool does make economic sacrificies, that greatly changes the argument. A lot of us would just like you to plainly acknowledge that there are economic trade-offs associated with an 11 overpool. lol, is there another thread that you're talking to jd on? The quote you are responding to is so old. I can't quite tell where jd stands on whether slowing drone production at 11 food to get an earlier pool sacrifices some early minerals. It seems plainly obvious to me that it does, but I still haven't seen him flatly acknowledge as much. The thread is quite long, and it's possible that I've missed that acknowledgement. If so, I apologize for bringing this up again, although it'd be nice if that issue could be made more clear in the OP.
I am updating the data in the OP now to include a comparison to 11Pool and 13Pool using jacobman's method of testing. You can see here clearly how many minerals and drones are in each build at each time.
|
Update:
jacobman has been running a thread was has a much more precise and consistent method of testing: AI scripting. This method produces replays that can be analyzed, using the AI to test each build, which is a solid empirical method I can agree with. I do not know exactly how consistent the results are, but you can find all the information you need regarding the method in this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174374
I have updated my data and graph to reflect the superior results he has come up with. I will not comment on the meaning or implications of this data -- I will simply allow you to analyze it and form your own conclusions regarding the relative merits and economic efficiency of each build.
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/oTMtm.png)
|
On December 13 2010 07:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:Update:jacobman has been running a thread was has a much more precise and consistent method of testing: AI scripting. This method produces replays that can be analyzed, using the AI to test each build, which is a solid empirical method I can agree with. I do not know exactly how consistent the results are, but you can find all the information you need regarding the method in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174374I have updated my data and graph to reflect the superior results he has come up with. I will not comment on the meaning or implications of this data -- I will simply allow you to analyze it and form your own conclusions regarding the relative merits and economic efficiency of each build. + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0CHDS.png) EDIT: Any thoughts on why the 11Pool would be behind a drone at the :30 second mark? I can't get my head around this, unless I recorded wrong....
"It has so far tested only slightly behind the current standard builds in optimum economics."
This change alone makes the OP have a much more objective feel to it.
|
Any thoughts on why the 11Pool would be behind a drone at the :30 second mark? I can't get my head around this, unless I recorded wrong....
Um, I'll check it out, but I can't think of any good reasons for that.
EDIT: I checked the replay I posted and they both have the same amount of drones (even down to the number of seconds to completion on drones) at the 0:30 second mark. I'm not sure how you're getting your data, but it doesn't hold true for the two replays I had posted.
|
On December 13 2010 06:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It is was easy to stop paying attention to your posts once you started getting emotional and insulting me repeatedly. You are firmly cemented in my mind as a troll since you continue to flame me without provocation on a public forum and refuse to apologize for your insults and name-calling.
You might want to pay a slight amount of attention to the fact that I'm not the only one in the thread (not by a long shot) that thinks you've been closed-minded and a jackass throughout the course of the thread.
As I've already said, you haven't even admitted to making dozens of inflammatory posts in this and other threads, much less apologized for them, and until that happens, I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing myself.
And I *did* tell you about the replay when you asked, trying to be helpful even though I'm a name-calling troll. If you chose to ignore my response, that's your own problem.
But hey. We can both contribute constructively to the thread even despising each other, so give it a rest already.
|
Hi everyone,
I've been using this build a fair bit over the last few days and I'm no pro, but I'd like to suggest (at least the testing) of a minor tweak.
I've noticed that right when the first overlord pops you have 3 larvae. I've been building one drone as soon as that OL pops, then building the pool on 12 instead of 11. That delays the pool for a few seconds, but you don't waste any larvae generation time. I'll then get to 17 drones before the pool pops and build a geyser to make room for the queen. (can use the trick again I guess, but I think you need gas then anyway).
Is there an obvious reason that this is worse? I would have thought that gaining ~seven seconds of larvae creation earlier on would be worth a few seconds on the pool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-173433.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-173434.jpg)
