EPT[D] The new Zerg standard for all match-ups? - Page 44
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Shelke14
Canada6655 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 13 2010 11:27 Shelke14 wrote: Hey! just wanted to give props this build. 1000 diamond here playing against 2000 diamond players, and this build is soo good! 4 gate is so easy to stop now, and that's all i seem to be running into when playing toss. 4 gate or 3 gate robo immo push. it rapes it. THANKs! Glad to see other people having as much success with this build as I am. I think this build is even better the lower ranking a player gets, because it covers so many push and cheese timings easily. I held off a diamond 7pool with no effort just today. On December 13 2010 11:11 HughJorgen wrote: 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. In my mind, if I am going 12 pool I feel I might as well get the overlord at 9 instead, because in that case the extractor trick isn't as relevant. Also, while you may gain a few seconds in larvae generation by getting the drone earlier, realize that you are delaying later larvae generation by getting a queen later. And queen larvae generation is more efficient than hatch. Haven't done testing on this, but it seems like a reasonable analysis. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
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. Grow up already... Hi. Apparent troll is back. Apparently. [/sarcasm] The status of the individual does not invalidate the individual's legitimate claims. To completely disregard the claims because the individual does not present ideas in the most reasonable fashion, or if there is some prejudice towards the individual simply makes the 'denier' (word?) ignorant. To disregard legitimate results on the basis of personal prejudice is not scientific and is not reasonable. Also on the same note, if you want respect, give it first. If your resolve falters even once, do not expect others to stay the same. Using this build, I feel it's somewhat more 'perceived' safety. Always planning to place an early pool just feels more safe than other methods. Regardless of the economics, the positive psychological effect may be better. This may be why lesser skilled players are better. They feel better, and play better when they feel good, so they play better. However, when players overcome this psychological part in their game, the economics are more crucial. Feeling safer is still unmeasurable, even if one is not actually ahead. On the data, it may be more important to have more drones at a given time, since if at that same point in time for both builds, you need to switch production, it's better to do so with more drones. | ||
|
genopath
80 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
Look what he named the thread? "New Zerg standard for all-match ups?" a little ambitious I would say. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
And I don't take criticism to heart. I simply reject people posting unfounded claims on my thread. I want everything to be backed up. I know people on TL are accustomed to completely ignoring the first rule of the strategy forum, and people on the internet can debate theory that has little grounds in reality for days, but I like data and evidence. Anything without data I will reject. It is that simple. If that offends your sensibilities then go join one of the other hundred threads on TL where people can spout whatever they want and have people take it seriously. But here, all the people who say "this build loses to X" and then are incapable of producing a single replay of them losing to X will have their argument either ignored or criticized. Glad I could clarify this for everyone. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On December 13 2010 13:21 jdseemoreglass wrote: It HAS become the standard for myself and many other players. And I don't take criticism to heart. I simply reject people posting unfounded claims on my thread. I want everything to be backed up. I know people on TL are accustomed to completely ignoring the first rule of the strategy forum, and people on the internet can debate theory that has little grounds in reality for days, but I like data and evidence. Anything without data I will reject. It is that simple. If that offends your sensibilities then go join one of the other hundred threads on TL where people can spout whatever they want and have people take it seriously. But here, all the people who say "this build loses to X" and then are incapable of producing a single replay of them losing to X will have their argument either ignored or criticized. Glad I could clarify this for everyone. Did you miss the posts where they provided the proof? Glad you're continuing to ignore criticism with your elitist attitude. : ) And the data available did say your build was not superior, simply you chose to ignore it. Or you chose to not comment on it. Interesting how you try to force a world to conform to your ideals. Or in this case, a thread or forum. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 13 2010 14:56 Blisse wrote: Did you miss the posts where they provided the proof? Glad you're continuing to ignore criticism with your elitist attitude. : ) And the data available did say your build was not superior, simply you chose to ignore it. Or you chose to not comment on it. Interesting how you try to force a world to conform to your ideals. Or in this case, a thread or forum. Who provided proof of what where? | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
Hi. Name Page Markwerf 32 Tehforce 33 Obsolescence 34/35 Skrag 37 Jaeger 37 You've rejected data because you think it is inferior to your own testing. Same argument goes both ways. You said their methods were wrong and their results were wrong. Again, the same argument can be used against you. I'll be out for another 30-40 pages. We'll see what happens by then. Glad to help. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 13 2010 15:13 Blisse wrote: Hi. Name Page Markwerf 32 Tehforce 33 Obsolescence 34/35 Skrag 37 Jaeger 37 You've rejected data because you think it is inferior to your own testing. Same argument goes both ways. You said their methods were wrong and their results were wrong. Again, the same argument can be used against you. I'll be out for another 30-40 pages. We'll see what happens by then. Glad to help. It WAS inferior to my own testing. It wasn't until the Jaeger post on page 37 that actual data that I could accept was provided. You are currently about 10 pages behind the debate here. Maybe the break will give you a chance to catch up so you don't make a fool of yourself. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On December 13 2010 15:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: It WAS inferior to my own testing. You are currently about 10 pages behind the debate here. Maybe the break will give you a chance to catch up so you don't make a fool of yourself. Or your testing was wrong. Who knows. Apparently you do because you're always right. The last 10 [EDIT:6] pages were all random banter, so I ignored it. Nothing about testing at all, except for possibly 43. Just because the discussion has moved elsewhere doesn't mean those results are suddenly non-existent. And you didn't reply to half of those results either. And you're making a fool of yourself getting mad. Sorry. I like "actual data I could accept" teehee. Peace~ | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 13 2010 15:20 Blisse wrote: so I ignored it. Yeah, you might want to inform yourself before you jump on the "bash OP" bandwagon. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On December 13 2010 15:23 jdseemoreglass wrote: Yeah, you might want to inform yourself before you jump on the "bash OP" bandwagon. You might want to read the next sentence because you're the one who wants empirical evidence. And hint, I ignored it because it was the bash op bandwagon. You need to calm down. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 13 2010 15:20 Blisse wrote: The last 10 pages were all random banter, so I ignored it. Nothing about testing at all, except for possibly 43... Here, let me do your work for you since you can't be bothered: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7281341 Or if you like, you could have simply read the OP. Have a nice day. | ||
|
Invictus
Singapore2697 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On December 13 2010 15:34 jdseemoreglass wrote: Here, let me do your work for you since you can't be bothered: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7281341 Or if you like, you could have simply read the OP. Have a nice day. Hi me again. It seems you have the odd habit of forgetting to read sentences. You might have missed the part where I said except for possibly 43 (which could appear as though I didn't read it, but that assumption is wrong). And where I said you completely disregarded all the other evidence. And also how again, you need to calm down. You also have the odd habit of only responding to the parts of posts that you can respond to, rather than the post as a whole. I expect that'll change for the next one however. Oh well. You seem to think that I didn't read. Don't. | ||
|
navy
Canada197 Posts
The argument that this build is inferior economically to the 14 hatch 15 pool is very valid. It doesn't matter that it is more flexible with the early pool, because to keep up with the 14/15 economically you need to follow the timing which allows for like no early lings, making the pool kind of pointless in that respect. If you do start lings you sacrifice the economic advantage of the build and might as well have gone 14/15 The same is true of the 14/15; however if in both cases you need to mess up your economic timing, the 14/15 will still come out ahead for getting the lings you need while providing a better economy than the 11/18 because of the early hatch. Furthermore the lack of creep is a huge setback. Essentially what i'm saying is that, if you aren't gonna be attacked before you have the forces, then you should just 14/15 for the small advantage. If you are gonna be early rushed, preparing for it with the 11/18 will screw up the timing that gave the economic advantage in the first place. That's my argument against this build, but personally i support it, although maybe not as the standard in all matchups. The strength of 11 18 is the versatility. It is probably the most economic timing for getting early tech while still aiming to expand relatively early. It also gives the option to simply one base play if needed, or do something like expand and then start spamming early lings, which would lack production capabilities, and kill your econ, but might be what is needed to defend a good 2 rax or proxy zealot rush etc. Personally i do this build whenever i am playing a random player or on a map like steppes or delta or sometimes LT as i feel it is the most versatile option zerg has, and can easily transition to quick units or a good econ. On metalopalis it is still a valid choice because you could spawn close. However I still think that on a map like Xel Naga, blistering or shakurus, against a terran or protoss the 14 hatch is the way to go. | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
| ||
|
taketobreak
73 Posts
Submitted by Lomilar, modified by jdseemoreglass 10 Extractor trick 11 Overlord 11 Pool (finishes @ 2:38) 16 Queen 18 Hatch (finishes @ 4:44) 17 Overlord 18 Overlord 21 Queen 28 Overlord 28 Maynard 7 drones 36 Overlord i believe i have found a build that modifies this slightly to get an even greater economic advantage your build sits on 3 larva for quiet an amount of time... i found a way to squeeze out a bit more econ (for free) at the very early stages of your build i noticed that the main thing you want to avoid is not sitting at 3 larva because when that happens you are "wasting larva respawn time". also you want to get the pool/queen ASAP because the faster queen gives you "more larva" so heres how i edited the build to reduce the amount of time you sit at 3 larva, and make you get a slightly faster queen 10 extractor trick at 55 minerals (75 is needed to do the trick, so you start it at 55 and build the drone asap and it gets you that extra drone asap) 11 double extractor trick at 75 minerals (100 is needed to do the trick, so you start it at 75 and build the drone asap and it gets you that extra drone asap) 12 spawning pool (when you extractor trick you lose 6 minerals and slight mining time. so by tricking 3 times you lose 18 minerals and some mining time but you get to spend all your larva on drones which exponentially keep mining and give more economy than building the 11overlord of the previous build. also by skipping the overlord you get a faster pool plus more drones than the previous build) 11overlord (the only time whatsoever that this build "sits on 3 larva" is between the pool and overlord, and you only sit on 3 larva for about 5 seconds. so this build lets you get a faster pool, an extra drone, and you arent sitting on 3 larva for any longer than 5 seconds) 11 double extractor trick at 75 minerals (100 is needed to do the trick, so you start it at 75 and build the drone asap and it gets you that extra drone asap) (the reason you want to do this is because the overlord takes 25 seconds and a larva spawns 15 seconds after you build the overlord, meaning if you DONT trick out a drone you will sit on 3 larva for 10 seconds wasting 10 seconds of larva time which means you lose 66% of a larva. But if you trick out a drone you will be able to do it a few seconds after starting the overlord which will make it so you dont sit on 3 larva which means you are gaining 66% of a larva for the cost of essentially 20 minerals. its worth it) DRONE UP TO 16 16queen this build is pretty much just like yours but it does actually give you a slightly stronger economy by giving more larva, more drones earlier, faster queen. in order to maximize your early game power as zerg you wanna sit on 3 larva for the shortest amount of time possible and get out extra larva production and drones early as fast as possible, and this build does it slightly better than your build here is a replay against a 2300 diamond terran showing the build up to building the first queen. in the replay i do the build up to making the queen THE REPLAY ONLY SHOWS HOW THE BUILD IS DONE up to the first queen. IN THE REPLAY i was not testing a econ build, instead i wanted to see if this type of build can make 1base roach viable to i tried making roaches. i conclude that even though i won the game in the replay that roaches are not viable because by skipping the hatchery my opponent was able to have more production than me and my opponent was able to pump workers while i couldnt pump as much workers as i needed to focus on roaches THE REPLAY only shows how do to the build up to 18food. After that you want to build a expansion hatchery instead of a roach warren. In the replay i made a roach warren instead of an expansion and i have concluded that is a bad thing to do and its much better to expand after making the queen. THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE REPLAY is to show that this build is exactly like yours but superior up to 18food. After 18food its better to expand (but in the replay i made roaches, which is a bad idea) once again the replay just shows how in the first few minutes going 12pool will give a small FREE BOOST to your economy and you sacrifice nothing. http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/replays.php?game=33&show=details&id=173513 | ||
kckkryptonite
1126 Posts
http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/115613-1v1-protoss-zerg-steppes-of-war http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/115612-1v1-protoss-zerg-metalopolis | ||
| ||
