[D] The new Zerg standard for all match-ups? - Page 48

On December 16 2010 04:35 jacobman wrote:


Alright, I have to be honest. I haven't seen any data that tests the different impacts that adding gas/scouting ect has on different builds. Could you link me to it?

On December 16 2010 04:40 fleeze wrote:

JUST USE YOUR BRAIN. goddamn. he provides valid data in his statements only ignorant people that want everything in detail with graphs and timings cannot see.
just as everybody should be able to see why a 14 pool that wastes no larvae is ahead against an 11 pool that wastes larvae and has opportunity costs before the first queen spawn larvae arrives...

On December 16 2010 04:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:


Here, wait... I am practicing my theorycrafting... Let me try this one, using "logic" and my "brain."

"You state that the 11Pool wastes larvae compared to a 14 pool due to there being a few seconds of delay in larvae generation at 11 supply. However, I contend that this delay in larvae waste is more than compensated by getting an earlier queen injection than the 14 Pool.

Therefore, I could argue that the 14 Pool wastes queen injection time compared to 11Pool, and is behind economically for that reason. It would certainly be a more reasonable assessment, since queen injections have a higher larvae/second ratio generation rate than a hatchery."

Wow, this IS fun... using my brain as a substitute for data...

On December 14 2010 20:42 ZerG~LegenD wrote:
Here's the data from a more detailed test where I minded the execution more.

11 Pool 14 Gas @ 7:00

Supply:48/60
Inject Progress:27/40 -> Add 5.4 Larva
Minerals: 409
Gas: 128
Expansion Complete: 5:52

14 Gas 14 Pool @ 7:01

Supply:51/60
Inject Progress:33/40 -> Add 6.6 Larva
Minerals: 389
Gas: 108
Expansion Complete: 5:30

Replay

Replay Notes:
I went for 4 Zerglings with the 14 Gas build and 6 with the 11 Pool, I resumed mining gas at 5:10 with both builds. I made a Spine Crawler when the expansion was at 50% with both builds. 14 Gas also gives you earlier Zergling Speed, against Hellions it won't matter, but against Stalkers it would.

Also, in a real game I'd probably need 2 Spine Crawlers, more Zerglings and a third Queen and a second Extractor when starting Lair. However, 11 Pool wouldn't be able to spend all its early Larva if I got all of that.

The only situation where an 11 Pool would be better than a 14 Pool would be against a 2 Rax all-in where all SCVs are pulled. However, we still don't know whether it can hold such a rush or not.

On December 16 2010 04:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:


Here, wait... I am practicing my theorycrafting... Let me try this one, using "logic" and my "brain."

"You state that the 11Pool wastes larvae compared to a 14 pool due to there being a few seconds of delay in larvae generation at 11 supply. However, I contend that this delay in larvae waste is more than compensated by getting an earlier queen injection than the 14 Pool.

Therefore, I could argue that the 14 Pool wastes queen injection time compared to 11Pool, and is behind economically for that reason. It would certainly be a more reasonable assessment, since queen injections have a higher larvae/second ratio generation rate than a hatchery."

Wow, this IS fun... using my brain as a substitute for data...

On December 16 2010 04:54 fleeze wrote:

good job in proving my second point true actually. you fail in reading comprehension.
i gave you 2 arguments:
- larvae waste
- opportunity cost
and you picked one and want to turn it against me. AGAIN.
also i said BEFORE queen spawn larvae arrives so your post is pointless.
try again.

edit: i didn't want to offend you jacobman. but markwerfs post has valid point and he explains them pretty good. why do you need more data for his statement to be true?

On December 16 2010 04:54 fleeze wrote:

good job in proving my second point true actually. you fail in reading comprehension.
i gave you 2 arguments:
- larvae waste
- opportunity cost
and you picked one and want to turn it against me. AGAIN.
also i said BEFORE queen spawn larvae arrives so your post is pointless.
try again.

edit: i didn't want to offend you jacobman. but markwerfs post has valid point and he explains them pretty good. why do you need more data for his statement to be true?

On December 16 2010 04:54 fleeze wrote:

good job in proving my second point true actually. you fail in reading comprehension.
i gave you 2 arguments:
- larvae waste
- opportunity cost
and you picked one and want to turn it against me. AGAIN.
also i said BEFORE queen spawn larvae arrives so your post is pointless.
try again.

edit: i didn't want to offend you jacobman. but markwerfs post has valid point and he explains them pretty good. why do you need more data for his statement to be true?

On December 16 2010 04:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:


Ok... this is fun...

I'm very confused by your data. When are you getting the hatch in the two tests? Did you prorate the larvae that are naturally produced from the hatches? Do you have the same number of overlords in both (really it's just better to report the standard, which is minerals spent + current minerals)? Why did you take mineral counts at different times? How do you assume that speed doesn't matter against hellions?

On December 16 2010 05:17 kcdc wrote:

Just let it go. If you stop trying to get the last word, people will stop arguing.

Wow, I was actually paying attention to this whole thing from the start and this is not at all how I expected it to turn out. That first thread where the logic seemed sort of like "Game sense doesn't matter, let's push the limits of zerg economics and see if our discoveries can rewrite game sense" is a pretty far cry from the place we are now, a place I'm kinda' appalled to be in.

I mean, I understand the idea of getting flustered if you get a lot of people yelling at you with theorycraft, I really do, but that isn't what this is anymore. You have people who play this game thoroughly ridiculous amounts explaining perceived weaknesses in the build to you. Now, if you have a way to defend the build, wouldn't it be rational to counter their points? If you were teaching, say, kindergarten math and a student asked you why 2 + 3 didn't equal 4, you would be able to explain that numbers didn't add up like that. I'm not trying to be belittling with that comparison, I'm just pointing out that a valid argument can be explained.

You're original post seemed like it wanted to test Zerg economics in an effort to gain understanding and potentially overhaul the metagame. That's admirable. Realistically, understanding of Zerg economy was gained, I won't argue with that. Unfortunately, as everyone (you included) knows, raw economy is a relatively simple thing when compared to Starcraft 2 as a whole. When you tried to convey that knowledge of economy over to the actual game, I think you lost track of what you were doing.

Originally your posts seemed focused on results. On working with people to get something usable, something relevant, and potentially create some form of metagame progress. When this topic was created, I noticed something. The title is exceedingly more arrogant than the previous ones. The tone has changed. You don't seem like you are trying to work with other people to get results, you seem like you are absolutely certain that you have a result. The thing is, that isn't how builds work. Starcraft 2 doesn't have builds that just work, everything is situational and builds, even established ones, are debated endlessly. If you were allowed to stand up and question the standard 15 Hatch opening that pros use, then surely you recognize that everyone else is just as allowed to question the theoretical build of someone unknown, right? It's in the nature of a strategy game to constantly debate all routes, standard or otherwise, and dodging that debate makes it seem like you have nothing to say, like you have no defense at all.

I'm not even going to raise the question of the effectiveness of your build. I legitimately don't give a shit about that, for all I know you do have counterpoints to these accusations about your build and you're just too busy being an ass to make them. You come off as someone who is too busy with his ego trip to bother defending his build. If you were more willing to discuss things with people who pose basic questions about the build, you might come off as respectable and, more importantly, your build might come off as effective. If you've actually got some horrible problem with answering the same question twice, or if you honestly think the people questioning are either trolls or stupid, then wouldn't a copy/paste of a correct answer not only take less effort than typing out witty criticisms of them, but also have the added benefit of not making you look like a complete ass? You no longer come across to me as someone who wants to learn something or push the envelope, instead you come off as someone who refuses to acknowledge that there may be any fault in his build and instead of defending it and shaping it into something respectable is ignoring all criticism and not just making a fool of himself, but making a fool of his creation.

I'd feel bad for typing something so long winded and pointless, but after your epic autobiography explaining how great you are and how everyone else didn't have valid questions, I'm perfectly fine with it. Anyway, congratulations, you've managed to completely flip my original view of you.

P.S. For clarification, my original view of you was "Damn, this guy has a cool idea. I'll actually bother to create a TL account to defend him from these trolls." My current view is "You do know that you aren't helping your case, right?" I was actually pretty mad when I first started typing this post because of how horribly something I was interested in got mangled, but now I'm just confused. The only sensible conclusion I can come up with is that this entire 3rd post is a massive troll, but I'd really like that to be wrong.