UPDATE: I have a more current thread with a more detailed analysis and comparison of different pool first builds in this thread: A Second Look At Zerg Openings
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
After doing countless empirical tests regarding the most economical Zerg opening in my previous thread, we were surprised to find this 11 Overpool build doing extremely well economically. It has so far tested only slightly behind the current standard builds in optimum economics.
The true strength of this build however, lay in it's incredible flexibility and safety. It can easily hold off a 6pool, 2rax, 2gate, or any other kind of rush build you can think of. If you scout your opponent playing a macro game, you have the flexibility of choosing whether to punish him with a sudden attack or keep up with his economy just fine. Likely even surpass it!
There is a real psychological value to this build as well. Once your opponent scouts your 11pool, he will likely overcompensate by playing more defensive and less macro-oriented. This of course is due to the widely held misconception that a 10 pool build "must do damage, or it is behind in economy." We have proven this to simply not be the case with this specific build.
It also negates the value of early scouting by your opponents, because this build can transition into anything: heavy eco, 1-base all-in, you name it. This will force your opponent to scout consistently, which will be made all the more difficult by early lings you can get.
This build will get you more larva out by the 6-minute mark than any other tested, so it does great at holding off 4gates or other mid-game pushes.
The more I look at it, the more reason I think this should be the new standard build for Zerg. I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
I have been testing this on the diamond ladder (2300+)... These are the first 6 games I played (I won 5/6). This build is so flexible, I really made things up as I went along and had no trouble adapting it to whatever I wanted to accomplish. I think these replays really illustrate the power of this build.
The first game illustrates how flexible this build is in reverting to an all-in attack. I scout my opponent opening hatch first, so that is exactly what I go for. Going hatch first or 14 pool would prevent this sort of pressure, and would potentially negate what is for me an easy victory.
Game two illustrates how well this build can hold up against a 4gate. This felt like the easiest 4gate I have ever held off because I had many units out quickly. At first I assumed my opponent was making a mistake, or was possibly going 3gate-expand, but the replay shows he did fairly well in keeping his resources low and drone count high. After holding off two attacks I prepare for a mid-game timing attack before his late expansion can reap dividends.
In this game my opponent opened with a 7 roach rush into expansion. I thought at first the 18 hatch would be vulnerable to such a rush, but I held it off fairly well with only minor damage taken. If you look at the harvester count after the attack, you will see we are even despite my having lost several drones. If I had cut a couple drones I think I could have held off the attack even better. From there it is a +1,+1 roach timing push ftw.
This is the game I lost. I did not anticipate how quickly the attack was coming. If I had just a few more seconds to complete the third spine crawler and roaches, I think this could have gone differently. Protoss does a good job of showing how to exploit a window of opportunity when at close positions.
In this final replay, I faced something that has become quite common since Foxer GSL... a 2rax marine-scv rush. Even with an 18 Hatch down, I survive. I have to pull drones to defend, but the lings get out just in time to clean up, and I counter attack. Here I made the unfortunate mistake of thinking his barracks had a clean wall-off, when it is clear to me now they didn't. I retreated from 1 marine when I could have won outright.
From here Terran expands and walls in his natural fairly well. I decide he has over-extended himself too much, and decide to punish with a baneling bust. Stream after stream of zerglings rush to the front, and he does well barely surviving again and again. Eventually, I kill off enough SCV's to justify the attack just as he bunkers himself in.
From there we switch to a macro game. His mid-game push is just not enough to hold off the swarm. Overall a pretty exciting match.
By request, a slightly more macro game. Toss builds 3gates and expands at close positions. I quickly surpass him in worker count, and by the 14 minute mark have enough units to kill him outright. I double-expand and easily defend-counter attack, killing his expo and leaving him on 1 base to my 4.
Again, by request, and to appease many of the (absurdly exaggerated) concerns regarding gas/speed timings, as well as viability in ZvZ, I have provided another game. Yes, this build has EARLY GAS! And I'm happy to announce there was no apocalypse or baby seals bludgeoned as a result of it.
I can't remember the build timings precisely, and I am sure it is not a perfect build since I made it up on the spot and even mistimed an overlord, but these are close enough. He goes 15 Hatch 15 Pool with an immediate gas following. I go 11pool 14 gas, and I think around 20 Hatch. I run speedlings to his base, morph in a few banelings, it is a quick win.
Note: I start my ling speed at 4:00, he starts his at 4:50. Note: when I began producing lings, we both hadexactly 17 drones. I wasn't behind a drone, or half a drone, or whatever... Note: I didn't catch up in drones due to a queen, I was caught up before I started my first inject! Note: At every point from 1:30 until 4:30 when I began making lings, I was AHEAD in minerals mined!
I'm sure you guys will enjoy poking holes in this one too, but it provides at least a glimpse of what is possible (and how wrong many people's assumptions are about this build. There is no substitute for actual data). The key to playing this build in ZvZ imo is quick lings. You will have a faster pool and much more early larvae than most opponents, so you can guaranteed put the pressure on your opponent from the very start. This will either win the game outright, or at least buy time to get gas/drones/speed/etc...
In this game, I want you to take a close look at the production tab... We are doing the exact same build! Has this player been reading TL recently? The builds divide when I block his expansion for a few seconds. We start the game with speedlings, but end up transitioning into roach play. He gets infestors, which is a very popular ZvZ strat these days, but I think they are honestly terrible. I haven't lost a game yet to any infestor play. I think the gas is much better spent in hydras or upgrades, but that is just my 2cents. Anyway, thought it was pretty funny to encounter this build already on the diamond ladder. I know variations on this have existed before, but perhaps this thread is making some ripples?
Turns out he did get the build from here. We did a practice match to compare his old standard, 13 pool, 13 gas. I posted for anyone who wants to analyze the differences between these openings.
As I said in a previous post, I think it is a little risky to put down the 18 Hatch if you are against a 1-base zerg. I have been trying to make it work however. It is certainly possible on maps that have a ramp that can be defended by a few roaches, allowing you to drone hard on two hatches.
I played this strat recently on the ladder, and it was fairly effective. Opponent opened speedling/baneling, which I held off with a few slowlings and roaches, and walled myself off. I am a very greedy zerg so I pumped tons of drones and took a slight risk against the coming mutas. Against fast mutas I like to distract them with a roach attack while I get spores and hydras in base.
Anyway, just wanted to provide some more food for thought. Here is the rep.
So tell me what you think. Will you be trying this yourself on the ladder?
Update:
jacobman has been running a thread which 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:
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 +
Update: This build is really starting to catch on and make some waves out there. I want to thank everyone who is contributing to this build.
Here is a video I found today, of PsyStarcraft covering a player who went "some teamliquid economic build." Don't knock it till you look it up and try it Psy. And it's not a 10 pool, it is an 11 Overpool, get it right.
Crixus yet again does a great job demonstrating the power of this build by winning his second game against iEchoic. This game is very similar to the 2rax-expand game I posted earlier in the OP. Enjoy.
We have our final game from crixus here. I want to thank him for doing a great job showcasing this build against high-level opponents. He went 3-0 until he finally lost to HasHe. The early game clearly favored crixus to win his fourth game, but a poor battle engagement and a few macro mistakes allowed HasHe to claw his way back to a win.
I would hesitate to say any opening BO is a standard for Zerg. Zerg are a flexible, reactive race. Your opener should never be static, always at first a step behind to respond then mid-game transitions are the leap ahead where you out-think your opponent and overrun him/her with sheer numbers of "Swarm" units and "Power" units.
I agree with Moja. I like how well it deals with early aggression and you still have an expansion, but nowadays several protoss and terran fast expand and even with a more economic build order it is somewhat difficult to stay in the economic race. I'm curious how this build would do versus a very macro oriented player, but I will try it definitely try it in practice games and perhaps make it a do it often when on close positions since I play against cheese/all-in early pushes half the games
I think the additional larva would enable both the punishing of a greedy terran/protoss as well as the drones to equal them in economy. Definitely will give this a try for a few more games and see how it goes. Tried it by surprise on my friend and he bunkered up in response giving me the free expo and I crushed him a little later.
This build seems excellent IF the economic difference between this at the 14hatch 15pool is not too great. It'll allow you to expand with the possibility of changing to an all-in as well as allowing you to defend many types of early aggression. Amazing find. I'm just wondering whether this build would do just as well even if you added a gas geyser to get speed at the same time as some of the other gas/pool builds.
jdseemoreglass, have you ran any calculations to determin what the best economical opening is when facing a mana pylon blocking the natural.
common sense would suggest that the earlier the pool, the quicker the lings can come out and clean up the pylon, but as all these calculations are not simple, i'm wondering if you have perhaps already graphed the optimum eco bo in this circumstance, taking into the account also the number of liings to build, the time is takes to destroy the pylon, that sort of thing aswell. would be curious to see which build out of the 14 hatch 15 pool / 11 pool 18 hatch is effected more by the pylon block.
EDIT: sry im being a doosh not thinkin straight i guess what im getting at, is going for a 14 hatch, moving ur drone to ur expo at 14 pop and then your pylon blocked, u then get an extra drone (as ur at 300 mineral) and put ur pool down on 15. so instead of the 14 hatch 15 pool. what i ment to say is, 15 pool and then hatch asap in comparison to the 11 pool 18 (or after lings clear pylon) hatch.
is 11 pool the most economical opening to clearing out a mana pylon?
On December 02 2010 08:56 Stone[MB] wrote: jdseemoreglass, have you ran any calculations to determin what the best economical opening is when facing a pylon block at the natural.
common sense would suggest that the earlier the pool, the quicker the lings can come out and clean up the pylon, but as all these calculations are not simple, i'm wondering if you have perhaps already graphed the optimum eco bo in this circumstance, taking into the account also the number of liings to build, the time is takes to destroy the pylon, that sort of thing aswell. would be curious to see which build out of the 14 hatch 15 pool / 11 pool 18 hatch is effected more by the pylon block.
Uh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do a 14 hatch and get pylon blocked, don't you just lose outright?
Would there be a similar build which adds gas for the super crucial ling speed and a scout. Or since the pool was up so early, could you use the first pair of lings? I've been adding an extractor at 16 and it seems you can squeeze a hatch, speed and get 100 minerals before the larvae pops (provided you take drones off gas at 100).
On December 02 2010 08:58 zink0 wrote: pardon my extremely noob question, but why two consecutive overlords at 17 and 18? also what is a maynard 7 drones?
thanks for the build, will try it tonight
I think you can squeeze one drone in between those overlords, but you end up building a lot of stuff in a very short period of time right around that area (queen + stuff from a queen larva spawn), so you do actually need the overlords pretty close.
On December 02 2010 08:58 zink0 wrote: pardon my extremely noob question, but why two consecutive overlords at 17 and 18? also what is a maynard 7 drones?
thanks for the build, will try it tonight
Maynard is just a synonym for transfer, transfer 7 drones from your main to your natural/expo
On December 02 2010 08:56 Stone[MB] wrote: jdseemoreglass, have you ran any calculations to determin what the best economical opening is when facing a pylon block at the natural.
common sense would suggest that the earlier the pool, the quicker the lings can come out and clean up the pylon, but as all these calculations are not simple, i'm wondering if you have perhaps already graphed the optimum eco bo in this circumstance, taking into the account also the number of liings to build, the time is takes to destroy the pylon, that sort of thing aswell. would be curious to see which build out of the 14 hatch 15 pool / 11 pool 18 hatch is effected more by the pylon block.
Uh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do a 14 hatch and get pylon blocked, don't you just lose outright?
sry im being a doosh not thinkin straight i guess what im getting at, is going for a 14 hatch, moving ur drone to ur expo at 14 pop and then your pylon blocked, u then get an extra drone (as ur at 300 mineral) and put ur pool down on 15. so instead of the 14 hatch 15 pool. what i ment to say is, 15 pool and then hatch asap in comparison to the 11 pool 18 (or after lings clear pylon) hatch.
On December 02 2010 08:56 Stone[MB] wrote: jdseemoreglass, have you ran any calculations to determin what the best economical opening is when facing a pylon block at the natural.
common sense would suggest that the earlier the pool, the quicker the lings can come out and clean up the pylon, but as all these calculations are not simple, i'm wondering if you have perhaps already graphed the optimum eco bo in this circumstance, taking into the account also the number of liings to build, the time is takes to destroy the pylon, that sort of thing aswell. would be curious to see which build out of the 14 hatch 15 pool / 11 pool 18 hatch is effected more by the pylon block.
Uh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do a 14 hatch and get pylon blocked, don't you just lose outright?
sry im being a doosh not thinkin straight i guess what im getting at, is going for a 14 hatch, moving ur drone to ur expo at 14 pop and are then pylon blocked, u then get an extra drone and put ur pool down on 15. so instead of the 14 hatch 15 pool. what i ment to say is, 15 pool.
Oh, my bad. I thought you meant having your ramp double-blocked after you put a hatchery down. In which case I think you do pretty much just lose outright unless the protoss screws up.
If you get pylon blocked that way, you're going to be way better off if you started 11 pool. That will always be ahead of a 15 pool that didn't go down til 350 minerals or so. Your expansion will still be delayed, but you'll be able to get lings out *way* faster to take the pylon out.
And one very real benefit is that if your opponent scouts your 11pool, he probably isn't going to pylon block the natural anyway, at least not unless 11pool/18hatch becomes pretty common.
On December 02 2010 09:06 phodacbiet wrote: Quick question, why do you get OL at 17 and 18? u can spend that extra 100 minerals to get an earlier queen or a drone
Both queens already come out as soon as they can be used anyway, but I think you're right about the extra drone. 17OL and 19OL should still get the second OL fast enough.
I add in the extractor depending on what I scout. In the 7RR replay I added a fairly fast extractor to keep up in the roach count, and it didn't seem to have a negative effect on the overall economy of the build.
The reason you need two overlords around 18 supply is because you are at 17/18 after putting down the hatch, and a larva inject is about to pop as well. Because the 4 larva and second queen will instantly use 6 supply, you would find yourself supply capped quickly without the additional overlord.
I added a replay where a Toss expands. It is a little more macro than the others, and I think proves the build can easily surpass Toss in worker count in very little time.
I've always liked overpool builds on small maps, especially in ZvZ. The mind games you play with an early pool can always throw an opponent off, not to mention stop most committed cheeses
i watched two replays and i still think that 2nd ol at 18 isnt needed. You can use that minerals to get a drone out or a faster queen for faster creep spread
On December 02 2010 09:21 phodacbiet wrote: i watched two replays and i still think that 2nd ol at 18 isnt needed. You can use that minerals to get a drone out or a faster queen for faster creep spread
Also realize that when getting the second overlord, you are currently supply capped. Therefore, this is a clear window of opportunity to produce the eventually necessary overlord while losing nothing in the process, because otherwise the larva would be doing nothing and the 100 minerals would be doing nothing.
If you value early creep over early units, by all means get the overlord and queen sooner. But I think this is not necessary at all. Early creep spreads were common in slow-starting hatch-first builds because they needed it to defend. I think the 11pool and earlier queens does just fine providing this necessary defense. I personally like to time my queens so they inject simultaneously as well.
On December 02 2010 08:58 zink0 wrote: pardon my extremely noob question, but why two consecutive overlords at 17 and 18? also what is a maynard 7 drones?
thanks for the build, will try it tonight
When I saw this I instantly thought I could improve this by getting the second queen sooner, and the 3rd overlord later. However, in my tests I noticed that the double overlord gives more time for the drones to mine that come out after, as you are able to build drones as soon as there is larvae for them, whereas if you build a queen, you have some extra larvae sitting around that cannot immediately be morphed into drones, thus you do not mine as many minerals.
I tested this by saving a game at the point in the build where you build the double overlords, and trying it both ways loading from this point in the game, assuring that the difference in results is not due to any small mining/initial split differences.
jdseemoreglass thanks for posting this build on a separate thread, this build is genius and i was worried it would get lost in the eco thread. It gives you the option to stop any early aggression, and its versatility makes your opponents early scouting basically useless, except they might know you have 2 bases, but since you can quickly go all in at any time, they just know they are going to be behind if they dont expand. I think we are going to see this build a lot more in the future.
I am super impressed you found a 11 pool opening as economical as 14/15. However, I remain skeptical about this being standard because of 2rax pressure. You do not get early creep, so no spine crawlers. This is made even worse because your ling speed is slower than all the other builds.
I will try it out tho, but I think these 2 things will prevent this from becoming standard.
On December 02 2010 09:44 Communism wrote: jdseemoreglass thanks for posting this build on a separate thread, this build is genius and i was worried it would get lost in the eco thread. It gives you the option to stop any early aggression, and its versatility makes your opponents early scouting basically useless, except they might know you have 2 bases, but since you can quickly go all in at any time, they just know they are going to be behind if they dont expand. I think we are going to see this build a lot more in the future.
Hmmm.... I never considered how this build would essentially negate the value of opponents early scouting. But I agree that is the case, since an all-in build or heavy eco-build would look exactly the same at the start.
That is a very good point I will add to the OP. Thanks.
JD, I am glad to see your progress with this build =). If you remember from the other thread, I was initially very intrigued by this build. Question though:
A lot of Protoss and Terran like to fast expand as fast as possible this days against Zerg players. Protoss are most guilty of it, using sim-cities and cannons to help defend. I imagine this opening discourages players from expanding that fast to begin with, but if they have the balls to do it anyway, does the earlier pool and extra larvae allow you to punish them hard enough to take the game right then and there?
Did it's reallly 17 overlord - 18 overlord? or its 17 overlord 18 gas? Because without gas -> no speed or banes, and i dont see how to handle hellion-marines-medivacs early push with this. Maybe i'm wrong but, take gas this late seems like suicide. btw did a double exctractor trick will not be better ? ( if doing perfectly ).
On December 02 2010 10:01 Xanbatou wrote: JD, I am glad to see your progress with this build =). If you remember from the other thread, I was initially very intrigued by this build. Question though:
A lot of Protoss and Terran like to fast expand as fast as possible this days against Zerg players. Protoss are most guilty of it, using sim-cities and cannons to help defend. I imagine this opening discourages players from expanding that fast to begin with, but if they have the balls to do it anyway, does the earlier pool and extra larvae allow you to punish them hard enough to take the game right then and there?
To be honest, I'm not sure. I haven't encountered such a build on the ladder yet. I suspect if you open forge you can get cannons pretty quick, and wall them in to prevent ling surrounds. Though, I know if I see my opponent attempt 15 nexus, I will certainly try to bust him
If anyone wants, we can try some practice matches to test these types of plays. I think that would be a great idea and really provide some evidence as to the limits of this build.
On December 02 2010 10:06 SlyinZ wrote: Did it's reallly 17 overlord - 18 overlord? or its 17 overlord 18 gas? Because without gas -> no speed or banes, and i dont see how to handle hellion-marines-medivacs early push with this. Maybe i'm wrong but, take gas this late seems like suicide. btw did a double exctractor trick will not be better ? ( if doing perfectly ).
Get gas whenever you feel most comfortable getting gas. The posted build is simply how to maximize economy, it can be adjusted anyway you like. Let's try not to make an extremely flexible build less flexible with assumptions about strategy.
On December 02 2010 10:01 Xanbatou wrote: JD, I am glad to see your progress with this build =). If you remember from the other thread, I was initially very intrigued by this build. Question though:
A lot of Protoss and Terran like to fast expand as fast as possible this days against Zerg players. Protoss are most guilty of it, using sim-cities and cannons to help defend. I imagine this opening discourages players from expanding that fast to begin with, but if they have the balls to do it anyway, does the earlier pool and extra larvae allow you to punish them hard enough to take the game right then and there?
To be honest, I'm not sure. I haven't encountered such a build on the ladder yet. I suspect if you open forge you can get cannons pretty quick, and wall them in to prevent ling surrounds. Though, I know if I see my opponent attempt 15 nexus, I will certainly try to bust him
If anyone wants, we can try some practice matches to test these types of plays. I think that would be a great idea and really provide some evidence as to the limits of this build.
encRoach 415 to add
I've been doing 11 overpool for quite some time now, and if I ever see an early FE by a protoss I have lings there before the cannon is up, and it turns into a micro battle between probes and lings. I have never lost a game in this situation, though I usually play only around 1900 diamond.
a question, when does gas come into play? I've been a fan of 14gas 15 pool which gives you ling speed, a queen and a ling all at once if executed properly even with a 9 drone for scouting. Also when do you scout? I assume you need EVERY drone to make this work for 11 pool, is this true?
On December 02 2010 10:06 SlyinZ wrote: Did it's reallly 17 overlord - 18 overlord? or its 17 overlord 18 gas? Because without gas -> no speed or banes, and i dont see how to handle hellion-marines-medivacs early push with this. Maybe i'm wrong but, take gas this late seems like suicide. btw did a double exctractor trick will not be better ? ( if doing perfectly ).
Get gas whenever you feel most comfortable getting gas. The posted build is simply how to maximize economy, it can be adjusted anyway you like. Let's try not to make an extremely flexible build less flexible with assumptions about strategy.
the problem with this assumption is that if you get extractor and 3 drones before your 18 hatchery, you slow down everything. larva and drone production. 14/15 is not affected by this because you build the extractor and 3 drones to gas after the hatchery has been placed.
this build is flexible in the sense you can all in and get lots of larva, but its inflexible on when to add gas.
I do agree after looking at your charts that this is the best build but I would like to make two extremely important notes.
1. I believe that your data on the graphs are off for the 11/18 build. Reasoning of why: look at the lines on the graph. The 11/18 achieves a greater slope that is obvious in the 4:30-5:00 interval. In fact at this interval the 11/18 has produced the most number of workers. Logically speaking once the slope has been steepened there is no way the other builds should surpass the 11/18 because if you look at the graphs the other two builds slope is not steepening by very much. Look at it enough it will make sense. *Guess as to why" Due to improperly saturating your main and expo.
2. While this build is amazing and I really want to try it out I have one concern. Having to make too many zlings early might create a problem. This is an adjustment players can make over time.
Ya JD, I personally want to thank you for the work you did. I don't believe this will actually become a super standard opening for all matchups because in ZvZ if you want to econ open gotta hatch first for fast creep and ZvP 14 gas 14 pool for fast ling speed is just so strong. However, ZvT this has a lot of promise!!
On December 02 2010 11:11 Sanasante wrote: I do agree after looking at your charts that this is the best build but I would like to make two extremely important notes.
1. I believe that your data on the graphs are off for the 11/18 build. Reasoning of why: look at the lines on the graph. The 11/18 achieves a greater slope that is obvious in the 4:30-5:00 interval. In fact at this interval the 11/18 has produced the most number of workers. Logically speaking once the slope has been steepened there is no way the other builds should surpass the 11/18 because if you look at the graphs the other two builds slope is not steepening by very much. Look at it enough it will make sense. *Guess as to why" Due to improperly saturating your main and expo.
2. While this build is amazing and I really want to try it out I have one concern. Having to make too many zlings early might create a problem. This is an adjustment players can make over time.
Recognize that each build will have different queen spawn larvae timings, and therefore each will fluctuate slightly from minute to minute in drone count (which at the 4:30 mark will also fluctuate income mildly). The RATE of drone production for every build will be identical, since they are equal in hatches and queens.
The slope at the end for 14 Hatch is nearly identical to the earlier slope for 11 pool... the moment when each build leads is clearly the moments after larvae pop for each build. The 16 Hatch build has queens that are not synchronized, and therefore does not produce as wide fluctuations as the 14 Hatch build.
On December 02 2010 11:18 Truffy wrote: Ya JD, I personally want to thank you for the work you did. I don't believe this will actually become a super standard opening for all matchups because in ZvZ if you want to econ open gotta hatch first for fast creep and ZvP 14 gas 14 pool for fast ling speed is just so strong. However, ZvT this has a lot of promise!!
My opponent in game 1 responded to my build going hatch first. Take a look at him.
And I really don't see the need for fast speed in ZvP... Getting a hatch at your natural for spines is probably a better priority imo, and then adding speed with roaches. In diamond I never go straight for speed against toss, and I've never wanted to either. For example, early stalkers can easily be delayed with slow lings and a queen until you get a spine up.
On December 02 2010 11:21 SoftSoap wrote: is extractor trick any different from 9 OV? i remember artosis said its actually worse. or that could be something i misheard
Your getting your pool at 11 and not 12. What makes the 9 ov better is the 1st drone produced timing vs 3 at once. Since your making the pool at 11 and not making the 12th drone it is better economically for the extractor trick.
Interesting, but how are you supposed to pull the expo off ZvZ against a standard 14 gas 14 pool? The only reason you can hold 14 hatch 13 pool against 14 gas 14 pool is because you can get spine crawlers out to defend, but with this build that's not going to be possible.
And how does this do economically compared to 15 hatch 14 pool and 15 hatch 16 pool? Those seem to be critical comparisons as well, since 15 hatch 14 pool is still used often in ZvP and both builds are standard in ZvT.
I like the idea, and I'm going to really test this build out; however I have one question.
Was the purpose of this not to find the most economical build? 14 hatch/16hatch first is always ahead in drones and resources at all points (on your graph).
Am I missing something here, or are you looking for the most economical/flexible build? Because if that is the case you can't simply dismiss creep spread as others have suggested, or the need for speedlings etc.
On December 02 2010 11:47 Orome wrote: Interesting, but how are you supposed to pull the expo off ZvZ against a standard 14 gas 14 pool? The only reason you can hold 14 hatch 13 pool against 14 gas 14 pool is because you can get spine crawlers out to defend, but with this build that's not going to be possible.
And how does this do economically compared to 15 hatch 14 pool and 15 hatch 16 pool? Those seem to be critical comparisons as well, since 15 hatch 14 pool is still used often in ZvP and both builds are standard in ZvT.
ZvZ: You can hold your expansion but knowing the number of drone/zling ratio to produce based on what hes spawning. However this will cause your gas to be delayed, and that could be fatal. So the problem with the ZvZ build is the gas timing rather than the hatch timing.
Economically: This build is better economically around the 4:00 to 5:00 minute marks. Afterward it trails behind the other 2 builds by only 100 minerals.
On December 02 2010 11:49 JBrown08 wrote: I like the idea, and I'm going to really test this build out; however I have one question.
Was the purpose of this not to find the most economical build? 14 hatch/16hatch first is always ahead in drones and resources at all points (on your graph).
Am I missing something here, or are you looking for the most economical/flexible build? Because if that is the case you can't simply dismiss creep spread as others have suggested, or the need for speedlings etc.
You might want to check the graph again. 14/16hatch are behind on drones for the first 6 minutes or so. And 14hatch appears to be strictly better than 16hatch on every front.
On December 02 2010 11:47 Orome wrote: Interesting, but how are you supposed to pull the expo off ZvZ against a standard 14 gas 14 pool? The only reason you can hold 14 hatch 13 pool against 14 gas 14 pool is because you can get spine crawlers out to defend, but with this build that's not going to be possible.
And how does this do economically compared to 15 hatch 14 pool and 15 hatch 16 pool? Those seem to be critical comparisons as well, since 15 hatch 14 pool is still used often in ZvP and both builds are standard in ZvT.
ZvZ: You can hold your expansion but knowing the number of drone/zling ratio to produce based on what hes spawning. However this will cause your gas to be delayed, and that could be fatal. So the problem with the ZvZ build is the gas timing rather than the hatch timing.
But how? How are you going to hold off speedlings and banelings when you probably haven't managed to tech up to either? Obviously you've tested this build and I'm just theorycrafting, but the timing to get sc up vs. a 14 gas 14 pool is tight as it is with a normal 14 hatch, there's no way you'll have them up in time with this delayed hatch. Are you trying to say you think you can hold off the attack just with slow lings and queens?
On December 02 2010 11:49 JBrown08 wrote: I like the idea, and I'm going to really test this build out; however I have one question.
Was the purpose of this not to find the most economical build? 14 hatch/16hatch first is always ahead in drones and resources at all points (on your graph).
Am I missing something here, or are you looking for the most economical/flexible build? Because if that is the case you can't simply dismiss creep spread as others have suggested, or the need for speedlings etc.
You might want to check the graph again. 14/16hatch are behind on drones for the first 6 minutes or so. And 14hatch appears to be strictly better than 16hatch on every front.
Yup checked it again, and your sorta right....with this build you are up 0.82-1.17 drones at the 4:30 mark which nets you an extra income of negative 40 to 90 minerals.
So lets think about that for a second, at the all important 4:30 minute mark you are barley up a drone and down on total resources mined, and this is the only point that this build is even remotely ahead at. Yup sounds like its the most economical of the three to me.
I don't think you can call this the most economical build if it is never ahead at important times (or any time at all really). Maybe the more flexible and still viable economic build, but that was really what my question was asking now wasn't it?
Edit: And as an aside there is one more point in time you area ahead in drones and that is at the 6:00 min mark at this point you are up 2-3 drones, which doesn't hold its lead until the 6:30 min mark when you are behind on drones and doesn't net you any more resources.
On December 02 2010 11:47 Orome wrote: Interesting, but how are you supposed to pull the expo off ZvZ against a standard 14 gas 14 pool? The only reason you can hold 14 hatch 13 pool against 14 gas 14 pool is because you can get spine crawlers out to defend, but with this build that's not going to be possible.
And how does this do economically compared to 15 hatch 14 pool and 15 hatch 16 pool? Those seem to be critical comparisons as well, since 15 hatch 14 pool is still used often in ZvP and both builds are standard in ZvT.
ZvZ: You can hold your expansion but knowing the number of drone/zling ratio to produce based on what hes spawning. However this will cause your gas to be delayed, and that could be fatal. So the problem with the ZvZ build is the gas timing rather than the hatch timing.
But how? How are you going to hold off speedlings and banelings when you probably haven't managed to tech up to either? Obviously you've tested this build and I'm just theorycrafting, but the timing to get sc up vs. a 14 gas 14 pool is tight as it is with a normal 14 hatch, there's no way you'll have them up in time with this delayed hatch. Are you trying to say you think you can hold off the attack just with slow lings and queens?
No. I was not disagreeing with your conclusion of this build in ZvZ. I was simply stating that the problem with ZvZ is that with this build your gas will be behind, because of the late gas you can be put in a very bad position losing more than you should have to.
Thanks so much for all the effort put into this build and protecting your integrity from all the theory-crafters / trolls. I'm currently trying this build out in all my MUs (2000+ Diamond). I'm not super comfortable with it yet, but it feels very strong, if a bit risky.
I hope this becomes standard, it is a lot more fun than stressing about FE.
On December 02 2010 11:49 JBrown08 wrote: I like the idea, and I'm going to really test this build out; however I have one question.
Was the purpose of this not to find the most economical build? 14 hatch/16hatch first is always ahead in drones and resources at all points (on your graph).
Am I missing something here, or are you looking for the most economical/flexible build? Because if that is the case you can't simply dismiss creep spread as others have suggested, or the need for speedlings etc.
You might want to check the graph again. 14/16hatch are behind on drones for the first 6 minutes or so. And 14hatch appears to be strictly better than 16hatch on every front.
Yup checked it again, and your sorta right....with this build you are up 0.82-1.17 drones at the 4:30 mark which nets you an extra income of negative 40 to 90 minerals.
So lets think about that for a second, at the all important 4:30 minute mark you are barley up a drone and down on total resources mined, and this is the only point that this build is even remotely ahead at. Yup sounds like its the most economical of the three to me.
I don't think you can call this the most economical build if it is never ahead at important times (or any time at all really). Maybe the more flexible and still viable economic build, but that was really what my question was asking now wasn't it?
The purpose of this thread is not to find the most economical build.... wtf are you talking about?
On December 02 2010 11:49 JBrown08 wrote: I like the idea, and I'm going to really test this build out; however I have one question.
Was the purpose of this not to find the most economical build? 14 hatch/16hatch first is always ahead in drones and resources at all points (on your graph).
Am I missing something here, or are you looking for the most economical/flexible build? Because if that is the case you can't simply dismiss creep spread as others have suggested, or the need for speedlings etc.
You might want to check the graph again. 14/16hatch are behind on drones for the first 6 minutes or so. And 14hatch appears to be strictly better than 16hatch on every front.
Yup checked it again, and your sorta right....with this build you are up 0.82-1.17 drones at the 4:30 mark which nets you an extra income of negative 40 to 90 minerals.
So lets think about that for a second, at the all important 4:30 minute mark you are barley up a drone and down on total resources mined, and this is the only point that this build is even remotely ahead at. Yup sounds like its the most economical of the three to me.
I don't think you can call this the most economical build if it is never ahead at important times (or any time at all really). Maybe the more flexible and still viable economic build, but that was really what my question was asking now wasn't it?
Please actually read the post before posting yourself. He tested a lot more than 3 builds...these three builds yielded the best results. Out of the three he took into account safety, and the fact that you are only behind by 100 minerals come middle game yet you cannot be cheesed (Very easily). If this build saves you 1 drone from dying or having to be removed from mining, this build practically will have paid for itself. Since this is most likely going to happen every game overall this is considered the most economical from a practical standpoint.
On December 02 2010 11:49 JBrown08 wrote: I like the idea, and I'm going to really test this build out; however I have one question.
Was the purpose of this not to find the most economical build? 14 hatch/16hatch first is always ahead in drones and resources at all points (on your graph).
Am I missing something here, or are you looking for the most economical/flexible build? Because if that is the case you can't simply dismiss creep spread as others have suggested, or the need for speedlings etc.
You might want to check the graph again. 14/16hatch are behind on drones for the first 6 minutes or so. And 14hatch appears to be strictly better than 16hatch on every front.
Yup checked it again, and your sorta right....with this build you are up 0.82-1.17 drones at the 4:30 mark which nets you an extra income of negative 40 to 90 minerals.
So lets think about that for a second, at the all important 4:30 minute mark you are barley up a drone and down on total resources mined, and this is the only point that this build is even remotely ahead at. Yup sounds like its the most economical of the three to me.
I don't think you can call this the most economical build if it is never ahead at important times (or any time at all really). Maybe the more flexible and still viable economic build, but that was really what my question was asking now wasn't it?
The purpose of this thread is not to find the most economical build.... wtf are you talking about?
That was my question, lol
Based on your opening statement of
(Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Which got derailed by the aside of the person responding to my question.
On December 02 2010 11:49 JBrown08 wrote: I like the idea, and I'm going to really test this build out; however I have one question.
Was the purpose of this not to find the most economical build? 14 hatch/16hatch first is always ahead in drones and resources at all points (on your graph).
Am I missing something here, or are you looking for the most economical/flexible build? Because if that is the case you can't simply dismiss creep spread as others have suggested, or the need for speedlings etc.
You might want to check the graph again. 14/16hatch are behind on drones for the first 6 minutes or so. And 14hatch appears to be strictly better than 16hatch on every front.
Yup checked it again, and your sorta right....with this build you are up 0.82-1.17 drones at the 4:30 mark which nets you an extra income of negative 40 to 90 minerals.
So lets think about that for a second, at the all important 4:30 minute mark you are barley up a drone and down on total resources mined, and this is the only point that this build is even remotely ahead at. Yup sounds like its the most economical of the three to me.
I don't think you can call this the most economical build if it is never ahead at important times (or any time at all really). Maybe the more flexible and still viable economic build, but that was really what my question was asking now wasn't it?
Please actually read the post before posting yourself. He tested a lot more than 3 builds...these three builds yielded the best results. Out of the three he took into account safety, and the fact that you are only behind by 100 minerals come middle game yet you cannot be cheesed (Very easily). If this build saves you 1 drone from dying or having to be removed from mining, this build practically will have paid for itself. Since this is most likely going to happen every game overall this is considered the most economical from a practical standpoint.
Sigh, I did read the post, and the original post this was based on.
I was simply asking if this was the "most economic" build because thats how he proposed it in the opening sentence of this new thread.
He also responded to different people asking about the viability of this build with different strategic requirements with:
Get gas whenever you feel most comfortable getting gas. bThe posted build is simply how to maximize economy, it can be adjusted anyway you like. Let's try not to make an extremely flexible build less flexible with assumptions about strategy.
You're not seriously 2200 diamond are you? Those games were pretty awful. Not to be mean or anything, but I'd like to see this build executed by better players. In the 2 rax expand game you posted, the dude put up 4 missile turrets and you hadn't even started lair yet... not to mention the HUGE amount of floating resources from both sides.
You were missing injects TERRIBLY all game (main queen had 70 energy by 12 minutes) and you were getting an in base hatch instead of a third when he was completely contained.
On December 02 2010 12:18 pwnasaurus wrote: You're not seriously 2200 diamond are you? Those games were pretty awful. Not to be mean or anything, but I'd like to see this build executed by better players. In the 2 rax expand game you posted, the dude put up 4 missile turrets and you hadn't even started lair yet... not to mention the HUGE amount of floating resources from both sides.
You were missing injects TERRIBLY all game (main queen had 70 energy by 12 minutes) and you were getting an in base hatch instead of a third when he was completely contained.
Also incredibly bad creep spread.
What can I say? I am simply a noob trying to learn the game.
Then again, if I am ranked 1000 in North America, I can't imagine how bad the other 842,000 players are...
On December 02 2010 11:47 Orome wrote: Interesting, but how are you supposed to pull the expo off ZvZ against a standard 14 gas 14 pool? The only reason you can hold 14 hatch 13 pool against 14 gas 14 pool is because you can get spine crawlers out to defend, but with this build that's not going to be possible.
And how does this do economically compared to 15 hatch 14 pool and 15 hatch 16 pool? Those seem to be critical comparisons as well, since 15 hatch 14 pool is still used often in ZvP and both builds are standard in ZvT.
ZvZ: You can hold your expansion but knowing the number of drone/zling ratio to produce based on what hes spawning. However this will cause your gas to be delayed, and that could be fatal. So the problem with the ZvZ build is the gas timing rather than the hatch timing.
But how? How are you going to hold off speedlings and banelings when you probably haven't managed to tech up to either? Obviously you've tested this build and I'm just theorycrafting, but the timing to get sc up vs. a 14 gas 14 pool is tight as it is with a normal 14 hatch, there's no way you'll have them up in time with this delayed hatch. Are you trying to say you think you can hold off the attack just with slow lings and queens?
No. I was not disagreeing with your conclusion of this build in ZvZ. I was simply stating that the problem with ZvZ is that with this build your gas will be behind, because of the late gas you can be put in a very bad position losing more than you should have to.
Ah, ok. Well I'd say it's both hatch and gas timing as either one being earlier would make you much safer (earlier sc or earlier tech).
I'm assuming you didn't get a normal 16 gas with the hatch first builds as that would obviously skew the results a lot in favour of this 11 pool. Couldn't you compare the two builds including gas? Try to fit a gas timing in for your build and do 16 gas for the hatch first builds. It would make for a lot more realistic results and the gas timing would be extremely useful to know.
Right now, I don't see the practical use of the build until you've managed to implement one or several gas timings.
ZvZ you're going to be hugely vulnerable to speedling/baneling.
ZvP you're going to be vulnerable to double cb stalker as you won't have ling speed and your sc will be significantly delayed. I'd go as far as saying with a late gas this build is completely unviable on a map like Delta where you can't cover everything with 1 sc. Slow lings just won't cut it against 4 stalkers with some zealots added in. Something like extremely fast 4 warpgate (put probes back on minerals after 50 gas, all cb on core) pure zealots would also tear this build apart.
ZvT you might be able to get away with it against 2 rax on maps where you can cover everything with 1 sc, but on wide-open naturals, the late lingspeed just won't work.
I'm sure you've done a lot of testing on this and understand the build much better than I do, but I feel like you need to come up with a decent gas timing for it to be a build we can actually discuss in a practical context.
On December 02 2010 11:47 Orome wrote: Interesting, but how are you supposed to pull the expo off ZvZ against a standard 14 gas 14 pool? The only reason you can hold 14 hatch 13 pool against 14 gas 14 pool is because you can get spine crawlers out to defend, but with this build that's not going to be possible.
And how does this do economically compared to 15 hatch 14 pool and 15 hatch 16 pool? Those seem to be critical comparisons as well, since 15 hatch 14 pool is still used often in ZvP and both builds are standard in ZvT.
ZvZ: You can hold your expansion but knowing the number of drone/zling ratio to produce based on what hes spawning. However this will cause your gas to be delayed, and that could be fatal. So the problem with the ZvZ build is the gas timing rather than the hatch timing.
But how? How are you going to hold off speedlings and banelings when you probably haven't managed to tech up to either? Obviously you've tested this build and I'm just theorycrafting, but the timing to get sc up vs. a 14 gas 14 pool is tight as it is with a normal 14 hatch, there's no way you'll have them up in time with this delayed hatch. Are you trying to say you think you can hold off the attack just with slow lings and queens?
No. I was not disagreeing with your conclusion of this build in ZvZ. I was simply stating that the problem with ZvZ is that with this build your gas will be behind, because of the late gas you can be put in a very bad position losing more than you should have to.
Ah, ok. Well I'd say it's both hatch and gas timing as either one being earlier would make you much safer (earlier sc or earlier tech).
I'm assuming you didn't get a normal 16 gas with the hatch first builds as that would obviously skew the results a lot in favour of this 11 pool. Couldn't you compare the two builds including gas? Try to fit a gas timing in for your build and do 16 gas for the hatch first builds. It would make for a lot more realistic results and the gas timing would be extremely useful to know.
Right now, I don't see the practical use of the build until you've managed to implement one or several gas timings.
ZvZ you're going to be hugely vulnerable to speedling/baneling.
ZvP you're going to be vulnerable to double cb stalker as you won't have ling speed and your sc will be significantly delayed. I'd go as far as saying with a late gas this build is completely unviable on a map like Delta where you can't cover everything with 1 sc. Slow lings just won't cut it against 4 stalkers with some zealots added in. Something like extremely fast 4 warpgate (put probes back on minerals after 50 gas, all cb on core) pure zealots would also tear this build apart.
ZvT you might be able to get away with it against 2 rax on maps where you can cover everything with 1 sc, but on wide-open naturals, the late lingspeed just won't work.
I'm sure you've done a lot of testing on this and understand the build much better than I do, but I feel like you need to come up with a decent gas timing for it to be a build we can actually discuss in a practical context.
You forgot many other points. How will you ever win without getting attacking units? So far this build only makes drones. In fact, this build doesn't even include a lair! There is clearly no scouting drone accounted for, so you will be in the dark all game. And how are we supposed to know what to do when we get past the final overlord? The build just ENDS there.
First Gas Timing is based on what you scout. If: - Shit's coming down the pipes, and you have time to get 100 gas and finish the research by the time you'd need it, get a gas. - Shit's coming down the pipes, and you don't have time to do the above, don't get a gas. Pursue alternate measures of defense. (Some combination of slowlings/spines/queens/evo chamber.) - Or blindly take a gas at whatever food/time you require to feel comfortable and sleep well at night.
The build is supposed to be something highly flexible. In a perfect world with no rush/aggression from your opponent, it has the strongest economy out of any zerg build, followed by 14 and 16 hatch.
If you are getting slammed with early aggression, you have the ability to defend comfortably. Very few players are 'comfortable' defending a lot of early aggression with a 14/16 hatch build (economic builds.) The niche this opening fits is thus: a flexible build with the options of comfortable defense or economic advantage.
On December 02 2010 11:47 Orome wrote: Interesting, but how are you supposed to pull the expo off ZvZ against a standard 14 gas 14 pool? The only reason you can hold 14 hatch 13 pool against 14 gas 14 pool is because you can get spine crawlers out to defend, but with this build that's not going to be possible.
And how does this do economically compared to 15 hatch 14 pool and 15 hatch 16 pool? Those seem to be critical comparisons as well, since 15 hatch 14 pool is still used often in ZvP and both builds are standard in ZvT.
ZvZ: You can hold your expansion but knowing the number of drone/zling ratio to produce based on what hes spawning. However this will cause your gas to be delayed, and that could be fatal. So the problem with the ZvZ build is the gas timing rather than the hatch timing.
But how? How are you going to hold off speedlings and banelings when you probably haven't managed to tech up to either? Obviously you've tested this build and I'm just theorycrafting, but the timing to get sc up vs. a 14 gas 14 pool is tight as it is with a normal 14 hatch, there's no way you'll have them up in time with this delayed hatch. Are you trying to say you think you can hold off the attack just with slow lings and queens?
No. I was not disagreeing with your conclusion of this build in ZvZ. I was simply stating that the problem with ZvZ is that with this build your gas will be behind, because of the late gas you can be put in a very bad position losing more than you should have to.
Ah, ok. Well I'd say it's both hatch and gas timing as either one being earlier would make you much safer (earlier sc or earlier tech).
I'm assuming you didn't get a normal 16 gas with the hatch first builds as that would obviously skew the results a lot in favour of this 11 pool. Couldn't you compare the two builds including gas? Try to fit a gas timing in for your build and do 16 gas for the hatch first builds. It would make for a lot more realistic results and the gas timing would be extremely useful to know.
Right now, I don't see the practical use of the build until you've managed to implement one or several gas timings.
ZvZ you're going to be hugely vulnerable to speedling/baneling.
ZvP you're going to be vulnerable to double cb stalker as you won't have ling speed and your sc will be significantly delayed. I'd go as far as saying with a late gas this build is completely unviable on a map like Delta where you can't cover everything with 1 sc. Slow lings just won't cut it against 4 stalkers with some zealots added in. Something like extremely fast 4 warpgate (put probes back on minerals after 50 gas, all cb on core) pure zealots would also tear this build apart.
ZvT you might be able to get away with it against 2 rax on maps where you can cover everything with 1 sc, but on wide-open naturals, the late lingspeed just won't work.
I'm sure you've done a lot of testing on this and understand the build much better than I do, but I feel like you need to come up with a decent gas timing for it to be a build we can actually discuss in a practical context.
You forgot many other points. How will you ever win without getting attacking units? So far this build only makes drones. In fact, this build doesn't even include a lair! There is clearly no scouting drone accounted for, so you will be in the dark all game. And how are we supposed to know what to do when we get past the final overlord? The build just ENDS there.
Look, I realize you're trying to put a prototype of a build out there. The point I'm making is that gas timing is an absolutely critical part of every build and unless you can show that you can get a similar gas timing as with hatch first builds while still keeping up with a hatch first economy, the build has little practical value.
If the reason this build can keep up in economy with hatch first builds is because it allows to spend your resources continually, it'll get more interrupted by having to get gas than a hatch first build, where you have to pool some resources until your pool finishes anyway.
On December 02 2010 12:53 Kava wrote: First Gas Timing is based on what you scout. If: - Shit's coming down the pipes, and you have time to get 100 gas and finish the research by the time you'd need it, get a gas. - Shit's coming down the pipes, and you don't have time to do the above, don't get a gas. Pursue alternate measures of defense. (Some combination of slowlings/spines/queens/evo chamber.) - Or blindly take a gas at whatever food/time you require to feel comfortable and sleep well at night.
The build is supposed to be something highly flexible. In a perfect world with no rush/aggression from your opponent, it has the strongest economy out of any zerg build, followed by 14 and 16 hatch.
If you are getting slammed with early aggression, you have the ability to defend comfortably. Very few players are 'comfortable' defending a lot of early aggression with a 14/16 hatch build (economic builds.) The niche this opening fits is thus: a flexible build with the options of comfortable defense or economic advantage.
Thanks a lot Kava. This is what I was gonna say, but I just couldn't resist the urge to re-troll for once.
I hate the idea of forcing a gas timing into a build because someone has a crutch for speed they can't break. I get it or I don't get it, depending on what I scout and decide while in-game. This build solves so many problems zerg face and provides so much economy and flexibility, I can't imagine anyone would reject it because they don't know how or when to get speed.
PS. You need to change your quote. "If you aren't attacking, you're probably losing (unless you are zerg)."
On December 02 2010 08:55 peanutter wrote: This build seems excellent IF the economic difference between this at the 14hatch 15pool is not too great. It'll allow you to expand with the possibility of changing to an all-in as well as allowing you to defend many types of early aggression. Amazing find. I'm just wondering whether this build would do just as well even if you added a gas geyser to get speed at the same time as some of the other gas/pool builds.
This build, if I am not mistaken, is mathematically superior in every way to hatch first.
Edit: well nvm, read a little further and it's like 100 mins behind although ahead in larva. Still I'd say it will pay for that easy in how much safer it is.
On December 02 2010 08:55 peanutter wrote: This build seems excellent IF the economic difference between this at the 14hatch 15pool is not too great. It'll allow you to expand with the possibility of changing to an all-in as well as allowing you to defend many types of early aggression. Amazing find. I'm just wondering whether this build would do just as well even if you added a gas geyser to get speed at the same time as some of the other gas/pool builds.
This build, if I am not mistaken, is mathematically superior in every way to hatch first.
This is false. Take a look at the thread I posted in OP. That is the thread that provides data on build economies, and 14 Hatch/15 Pool is the leader, though there is some dispute about 16 Hatch...
This build was the best out of all the pool-first builds, and actually competed surprisingly well with the hatch-first build. I thought it deserved it's own thread for the reasons listed in the OP.
I have been gassing immediately after hatch most often, and its worked relatively well (clearly there are times when this wasn't a good idea, but it seems to fit there well)
On December 02 2010 14:28 Cheshyr wrote: I tried it a couple times tonight, as a lowly Bronze. In the most notable game, I failed to defend the first speedling rush from a Silver player, but managed to repel the 'lings using my excessive drone force. I recovered quickly, and won easily with Roaches.
I admit, it was an awful game, I'm a terrible player, and I executed the BO poorly. It still worked. I think I'm going to continue to use this build.
cant load the replay, but drone heroism is a zvz staple :D
I think this build is quite vulnerable to hidden tech, particularly in the case of DTs, Phoenix openings, Banshees and Vikings. ZvZ, you'll really want to catch when they put down that Baneling Nest and hotkey your Drones. I also see early Muta harass being potentially dangerous with this BO. However, vs the current FotM builds, it is flexible enough to hold up.
This build isn't a full proof plan. People should realize that the point of this build is to insert things like the gas timing, the ling speed, lair tech etc etc while still being pretty stable in econ. Just follow this build like a general outline, then feel for when each tech needs to be placed.
On December 02 2010 15:12 Conrose wrote: I think this build is quite vulnerable to hidden tech, particularly in the case of DTs, Phoenix openings, Banshees and Vikings. ZvZ, you'll really want to catch when they put down that Baneling Nest and hotkey your Drones. I also see early Muta harass being potentially dangerous with this BO. However, vs the current FotM builds, it is flexible enough to hold up.
lol, I have seen some hilarity with this build in zvz, while I am tempted to tell tales without replays, lets just say that many zerg are very confused when the lings dont come after the 11 pool, and roach+drone is my new favorite army composition.
Sooo 2000 Diamond zerg here and I LOVE this opening, especially vs. toss, it's amazing how it psyches them out, they usually keep that annoying probe to pylon the nat if they can, but its so easy to have a couple lings to move it out of the way fast it barley matters
I've basically been doing massive macro off of this build and if the protoss tries to expo then every time they get crushed.
The literal only think i believe I've lost to when i used this build and followed it correctly( lost once when i forgot the pool until like 14 supply..... -_-") is when I've been 4 gated which sounds like a flaw in the build but its actually just that o think I've lost to literally every 4 gate someone has tried on me....(i know pretty embarrassingly sad) but i have gotten better and i was able to defend much better then with traditional 14 hatch 15 pool.
OP if your looking for some replays (from an decent at best player) that shows the macro aspect behind this opening ill gladly throw some up ^.^!!!
I highly doubt this would be a good build for zvz, at least the way I play it anyway 14gas 13 pool get speed expo at 21 then speedling it up and push back the morphing banelings so he cant get to my base before i make banelings, or if he roaches....its sort of GG since I have my expo and can drone up/sunken when he comes.
however, I see this build being pretty darn decent in ZvP and ZvT, depending on the situation. Just should probably figure out what the proper time to get gas would be.
On December 02 2010 17:34 Terrifyer wrote: I highly doubt this would be a good build for zvz, at least the way I play it anyway 14gas 13 pool get speed expo at 21 then speedling it up and push back the morphing banelings so he cant get to my base before i make banelings, or if he roaches....its sort of GG since I have my expo and can drone up/sunken when he comes.
however, I see this build being pretty darn decent in ZvP and ZvT, depending on the situation. Just should probably figure out what the proper time to get gas would be.
Well, the argument is that 11 pool is essentially almost identical to any late pool, hatch first build. And the 11 pool protects easily against 6-pool shenanigans. So... by 11 pooling blindly, not only are you safe against cheese, but when your scouting drone arrives, you can easily transition into macro mode, or offense, or fast expo or 1-base depending on what you see.
To the OP,
The standard 7RR build uses 11 pool in it, so I'm not sure that replay you posted is viable, especially since the guy you replayed, in addition to having the worst micro in the world, also hit your base about 45 seconds late. If he had hit at the proper timing, he'd have won outright (although this would have been more to your error than his, especially since you both would have used the 11 pool build).
I love this build. It combines economic efficiency and a really high scare-factor for the opponent.
In 50% of my games so far, where I use this build (zvp/t), the enemy does something resource-intensive to counter my early pool. Protoss hardwalling, terra putting down two bunkers, chronoboost on gate instead of nexus, faster early units, something like this - if you consider this the economic value rises even more, because it sets your opponent back economic-wise compared to you.
It was also a joy to finally defend this 2racks-scv-all-in pushes I had troubles with lately.
Btw I modified the build to this most of the times:
11 OL 11 Pool 16 Queen 18 Hatch 17 OL 17 Extractor 16 Zergling 17 Zergling 18 Queen
This puts the extractor in at 17, after hatch and overlord, which in addition with the hatch frees up enough food for my 2 pair of zerglings I use for scouting. It also frees me from the 2nd overlord at 18, because the second the first queen pops my first OL does too and I got 159 minerals, so I can start the 2nd queen right away. Or if I feel very threatened I can put a roach warren in there at 16 or 18 easily and have enough gas mined for 4-5 roaches when it pops.
First, all of the blind criticism that open with wordings such as "I doubt," "I don't think," "I really can't see," do not contribute much to this post. Try it out and post your results.
And, as Protoss this build makes me sigh for certain maps. I suppose 11 pool without gas is another thing I need to adapt to early in the game. I can see where stalkers would shred this with no quick speed. Hmm...some of your posts have me reevaluating my decision making in the PvZ match up.
I'll try to get in touch with you in the game and play some practice matches.
If I were Zerg I'd certainly go for this. But I feel that the people asking about gas timing do have a point. I understand that the build is a template and that you should adapt based on what you scout. But suppose that, perhaps based on the scout, or as an a priori decision, you decide to get quick tech combined with the largest possible economy you can get. Since the pool is so early, the build in fact seems to be very suitable for quick teching as well. Can you describe a reasonable adaptation that gives you 100 gas for lair or speedlings quickly (i.e., not long after the pool finishes) while still generating a reasonably large economy? Obviously, one can improvise, but in practice it would be useful to know an optimised timing in which things mesh together nicely.
edit: Finki's adaptation of the build above looks like a good way to get gas and some lings, but it still focuses on economy. What I'm driving at is a variation on the build that focuses on quick tech.
I am using this build for 2 days now and from experience( diamond 1800) I can tell you that i never could make it to the end of the build because the enemy puts pressure. I usually make it until the first queen ( depending on map). But still is a very comfortable build because you can adapt very easy.
i remeber in one of TL threads that they speak about what is more optimal, and actually it was 12 pool with double extractor trick. Also i remember in bold text that NEVER OVERPOOL in this game
Yes Yes Yes - has been working so well for me - at least up to the first queen - which is when tiy hopefully have some idea if aggression is on its way - I defeated 2 x 6 pools, 2 rax scv, proxy void rush, proxy 2 gate, forge FE all with this build at the beginning - soooo satisfying when some douche 6 pools or 2 rax scv rush etc and you and stomp them... I mention forge FE as that is the other side of the scale where economy is paramount - srsly I'm loving the flexibility of this build... only problem is you need lings to stop the denying of the expo if they decide to be a pain
I'm not sure how itd hold up against a pylon/bunker block at the ramp...
It's fairly obvious a earlier pool build would be more economical in the scenario where you don't get gas or lings at all for the early game. That however is quite unrealistic and thus this build is far from as efficient as it looks.. Sure getting the queen asap provides more drones but if you are getting lings as well you can't use all drones anyway... This build is much less efficient early on but makes up for it later on because the first inject is earlier, however assuming you can just drone up completely is unrealistic.
11 pool builds are crap in ZvT imo where you can't drone like this anyway and just set your own economy back needlessly. In ZvP it's a different case as fast pools automatically deny some builds (like nexus first) and also provide a anti-scout very early, however this build doesn't include an early pair of lings so once again is useless as such, if you try a fast pool build like this at least include an early pair of lings..
Builds that don't include units and don't include scouting should just be banned from the forum really, its just useless in practice anyways. Add lings & scouting to this build and you will notice you will have a mineral shortage somewhere, ie. you can't drone as hard as you like. As a result this build is less efficient economy wise as 14 pool or 14 hatch. Not saying the build is useless but it will in no way be mainstream.
On December 02 2010 22:34 Markwerf wrote: It's fairly obvious a earlier pool build would be more economical in the scenario where you don't get gas or lings at all for the early game. That however is quite unrealistic and thus this build is far from as efficient as it looks.. Sure getting the queen asap provides more drones but if you are getting lings as well you can't use all drones anyway... This build is much less efficient early on but makes up for it later on because the first inject is earlier, however assuming you can just drone up completely is unrealistic.
11 pool builds are crap in ZvT imo where you can't drone like this anyway and just set your own economy back needlessly. In ZvP it's a different case as fast pools automatically deny some builds (like nexus first) and also provide a anti-scout very early, however this build doesn't include an early pair of lings so once again is useless as such, if you try a fast pool build like this at least include an early pair of lings..
Builds that don't include units and don't include scouting should just be banned from the forum really, its just useless in practice anyways. Add lings & scouting to this build and you will notice you will have a mineral shortage somewhere, ie. you can't drone as hard as you like. As a result this build is less efficient economy wise as 14 pool or 14 hatch. Not saying the build is useless but it will in no way be mainstream.
I am sorry if I sound aggressive, but this post really bothers me. Firstly, it is not obvious at all that such an early pool can compete with a 14 hatch 14/15 pool build. In fact that fact is amazing.
Second, for obvious reasons building lings reduces the number of drones you build. However, unless you provide some argument, I will assume that the impact on the economy is very similar both for this build and for 14 hatch 14 pool. The only exception is when you build a lot of lings before the pool for 14 hatch 14 pool finishes, then there is no comparison possible. But loosing 6 lings in defense of an extremely early rush is better than loosing 6 drones, so this build is better of economically.
As a third, the OP does not include a scout or fighting units on purpose. Instead he assumes that you have a brain to scout when you think it is needed instead of when some magic list on the internet told you to do so. Same with fighting units. This is no 3 roach rush, the aim is to have the option to have an extremely strong economy with an early pool.
As a final comment, your overzealous wish to ban one of the few truly constructive and innovative threads is so misguided it just baffles me. This thread contains a valid buildorder, a lot of testing and data on how it performs in a purely economic setting, a lot of replays you probably did not watch and many positive responses by zerg players who have tried it out.
Wow, thanks! I'll be trying this out in all my ladder matches for the next few days. Intuitively, this build looks pretty damn flexible, which is something that I need at the moment.
Zerg player here, just tried this in a few games game 1 i held off a scv marine rush from a terran and game 2 vs a protoss on blistering sands i just pulled ahead in macro then defended the 4 gate with lots of splings/counterattack/delaying
From a meta-game perspective, this build is awesome for the 7RR potential since it looks pretty similar to a 7RR. I think more game-like variations on it still need to be worked out. I'm trying to find the right timing to take gas and get metabolic boost against protoss.
I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Why post a build order, just say maybe the first two numbers then use the format after X get Y. To you and me these things seem understandable, but to someone who is in lower leagues or someone whos first RTS is starcraft 2 they will read that as a plan they need to stick to, and if your really mean to aid someone in proving your point you can tell them what to get after something else and as there skill increases their ability will do it will increase and maybe a new optimal way to get things will evolve... which is what we all want for starcraft
not to mention, if something gets buffed or nerfed in a patch lowbies are going to wonder why they arent getting the things at the time they should be, which won't win your strategy any popularity as the game progresses
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Why post a build order, just say maybe the first two numbers then use the format after X get Y. To you and me these things seem understandable, but to someone who is in lower leagues or someone whos first RTS is starcraft 2 they will read that as a plan they need to stick to, and if your really mean to aid someone in proving your point you can tell them what to get after something else and as there skill increases their ability will do it will increase and maybe a new optimal way to get things will evolve... which is what we all want for starcraft
not to mention, if something gets buffed or nerfed in a patch lowbies are going to wonder why they arent getting the things at the time they should be, which won't win your strategy any popularity as the game progresses
By your logic we should all stop posting build orders because the opponent could rush you with 5 workers...
The OP is describing a very very flexible opener where you get the most economy if you follow it to the letter. Nobody said to do the opener blindly, no matter what happens.
If you don't understand that, then don't look at build orders anymore. But let the rest of us who DO understand how to use them post about it okay?
OP, I am wondering how this build handles cheese. It seems very difficult because you supply block yourself at 18, and you wont have an opportunity to make Zlings until after the hatch is down AND your overlord is done.
For this reason I have only used this build on scrap, because I can use my overlord to scout and I don't need to scout with a drone.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
On December 02 2010 23:50 Sirion wrote: I am sorry if I sound aggressive, but this post really bothers me. Firstly, it is not obvious at all that such an early pool can compete with a 14 hatch 14/15 pool build. In fact that fact is amazing.
Second, for obvious reasons building lings reduces the number of drones you build. However, unless you provide some argument, I will assume that the impact on the economy is very similar both for this build and for 14 hatch 14 pool. The only exception is when you build a lot of lings before the pool for 14 hatch 14 pool finishes, then there is no comparison possible. But loosing 6 lings in defense of an extremely early rush is better than loosing 6 drones, so this build is better of economically.
As a third, the OP does not include a scout or fighting units on purpose. Instead he assumes that you have a brain to scout when you think it is needed instead of when some magic list on the internet told you to do so. Same with fighting units. This is no 3 roach rush, the aim is to have the option to have an extremely strong economy with an early pool.
As a final comment, your overzealous wish to ban one of the few truly constructive and innovative threads is so misguided it just baffles me. This thread contains a valid buildorder, a lot of testing and data on how it performs in a purely economic setting, a lot of replays you probably did not watch and many positive responses by zerg players who have tried it out.
Well, I'm theorycrafting here but a lot of builds need to consider qualitative aspects of the game and not tunnel vision on the quantitative results. The few reasons people are criticizing here are not that complex or unfair...
Since the build takes no gas (or a super late gas), the early pool allowing the early Queen looks better than a typically timed zerg opening (with gas), since having the extra 4 drones (3 off gas plus not wasting drone on extractor) allow you to continually produce from the early injections. In most games 100 gas for lair, speed or roach defense is required to QUICKLY react to early aggression or fast/hidden tech. If you took a normal gas (anywhere from 14-18 let's say) with an early pool, I imagine you wouldn't be able to produce from all that early larvae (but I could be wrong not having tested, this just seems to make sense)
You mentioned producing lings affects both typical openings and this build equally, however in other builds which get ling speed rather early, one could argue that the you get more "economic benefit" from fast lings, since these lings will be able to accomplish more and require less lings (think how many slow lings you would want vs. an early push over how many speedlings you would need).
While I don't agree with banning threads trying to help, it would be nice for people claiming strong build orders to properly have them worked out with scouting, full economic timing (gas) and execution/transition like seen on Liquipedia.
edit: To actually see how economical this build can be, the builder should test getting gas at various supply levels and then compare that to typical 14g/14p, 14p/15h, etc openings and determine how early the gas can be with this build and STILL beat those. Seems like that would be an important sticking point.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
This is a generic opening to follow in generic circumstances.
If you get your nat/ramp blocked with pylons/bunkers, no single opening won't have to adapt.
However, 11pool makes pylon blocking much less cost efficient. Zerg isn't forced to take 5-6 drones off mineral to slowly kill pylons that can get cancelled before completion anyway. You'll have to sacrifice a larva or 2 for lings... but guess what... the 14hatch guy would do it too if he could.
On December 02 2010 22:34 Markwerf wrote: Builds that don't include units and don't include scouting should just be banned from the forum really, its just useless in practice anyways.
...your overzealous wish to ban one of the few truly constructive and innovative threads is so misguided it just baffles me.
Banning useful information from the forums seems counter-intuitive to me. Am I missing something here?
I'm a little disturbed that people can't think in terms of framework. It's a foundation you can use to play your own game, and it encourages personalization without sacrificing effectiveness.
How often do you read about a build order, try it out, and realize it just doesn't fit with the way you play? But you do it anyway, since it's 'the best', or the latest exploitation of the metagame? This build is a gift. You can use it to play using your own style. If it conflicts with your style too much, don't use it... stick with the 14P-15H. Or something else. Suggesting that this build 'could' become the standard doesn't mean it will.
To placate the 'when to gas' question, it would be interesting to see an array of games with an extractor inserted into the build at specific points. It won't be terribly useful, but we can use that information to adjust our responses to different types of early aggression.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Why post a build order, just say maybe the first two numbers then use the format after X get Y. To you and me these things seem understandable, but to someone who is in lower leagues or someone whos first RTS is starcraft 2 they will read that as a plan they need to stick to, and if your really mean to aid someone in proving your point you can tell them what to get after something else and as there skill increases their ability will do it will increase and maybe a new optimal way to get things will evolve... which is what we all want for starcraft
not to mention, if something gets buffed or nerfed in a patch lowbies are going to wonder why they arent getting the things at the time they should be, which won't win your strategy any popularity as the game progresses
By your logic we should all stop posting build orders because the opponent could rush you with 5 workers...
The OP is describing a very very flexible opener where you get the most economy if you follow it to the letter. Nobody said to do the opener blindly, no matter what happens.
If you don't understand that, then don't look at build orders anymore. But let the rest of us who DO understand how to use them post about it okay?
you wouldn't be able to carry out your build order without workers now would you. Build orders stifle creativity, and adaptability, if your going to follow a build order every game you could be a million points diamond, but if you just know how to follow build orders your either going to get messed up by early pressure, or lost in the late game when the build order stops. Notice you've never seen a build order that says "if this push fails do X" because everyone is so fucking confident in their build order that they don't see if failing.
On December 03 2010 01:02 OriginalBeast wrote: Notice you've never seen a build order that says "if this push fails do X" because everyone is so fucking confident in their build order that they don't see if failing.
I thought we never saw that in a build order because we assumed competence and creativity on the part of the player?
On December 02 2010 23:50 Sirion wrote: I am sorry if I sound aggressive, but this post really bothers me. Firstly, it is not obvious at all that such an early pool can compete with a 14 hatch 14/15 pool build. In fact that fact is amazing.
Second, for obvious reasons building lings reduces the number of drones you build. However, unless you provide some argument, I will assume that the impact on the economy is very similar both for this build and for 14 hatch 14 pool. The only exception is when you build a lot of lings before the pool for 14 hatch 14 pool finishes, then there is no comparison possible. But loosing 6 lings in defense of an extremely early rush is better than loosing 6 drones, so this build is better of economically.
As a third, the OP does not include a scout or fighting units on purpose. Instead he assumes that you have a brain to scout when you think it is needed instead of when some magic list on the internet told you to do so. Same with fighting units. This is no 3 roach rush, the aim is to have the option to have an extremely strong economy with an early pool.
As a final comment, your overzealous wish to ban one of the few truly constructive and innovative threads is so misguided it just baffles me. This thread contains a valid buildorder, a lot of testing and data on how it performs in a purely economic setting, a lot of replays you probably did not watch and many positive responses by zerg players who have tried it out.
Well, I'm theorycrafting here but a lot of builds need to consider qualitative aspects of the game and not tunnel vision on the quantitative results. The few reasons people are criticizing here are not that complex or unfair...
Since the build takes no gas (or a super late gas), the early pool allowing the early Queen looks better than a typically timed zerg opening (with gas), since having the extra 4 drones (3 off gas plus not wasting drone on extractor) allow you to continually produce from the early injections. In most games 100 gas for lair, speed or roach defense is required to QUICKLY react to early aggression or fast/hidden tech. If you took a normal gas (anywhere from 14-18 let's say) with an early pool, I imagine you wouldn't be able to produce from all that early larvae (but I could be wrong not having tested, this just seems to make sense)
You mentioned producing lings affects both typical openings and this build equally, however in other builds which get ling speed rather early, one could argue that the you get more "economic benefit" from fast lings, since these lings will be able to accomplish more and require less lings (think how many slow lings you would want vs. an early push over how many speedlings you would need).
While I don't agree with banning threads trying to help, it would be nice for people claiming strong build orders to properly have them worked out with scouting, full economic timing (gas) and execution/transition like seen on Liquipedia.
Transition to whatever you like. Seriously. You don't need someone to spell out the transitions for a 14 hatch 14 pool because you're not restricted in any way, and can transition in any way that is appropriate. This isn't any different.
As far as gas timing, scouting, etc. it's the same: do it whenever you want, depending on what you want to do. The only time something like this should be noted is if doing so would effect the build in some way. For example, dropping down an Extractor before your Hatchery and putting 3 Drones in it likely screws up the timing of your Hatchery, but this is likely intuitive. Likewise, scouting on 10 could (I haven't checked) delay your Hatchery by a little bit. It might be beneficial to note at what time you can effectively scout without delaying your hatch, but that's something you should pick up if you play with it a few times. Once the hatch is down, though, you should be able to pretty much do whatever you want to do that makes sense. Overlord and Drone timings from then on obviously assume ideal, uninterrupted play. If your opponent is doing something you should probably react to it.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Why post a build order, just say maybe the first two numbers then use the format after X get Y. To you and me these things seem understandable, but to someone who is in lower leagues or someone whos first RTS is starcraft 2 they will read that as a plan they need to stick to, and if your really mean to aid someone in proving your point you can tell them what to get after something else and as there skill increases their ability will do it will increase and maybe a new optimal way to get things will evolve... which is what we all want for starcraft
not to mention, if something gets buffed or nerfed in a patch lowbies are going to wonder why they arent getting the things at the time they should be, which won't win your strategy any popularity as the game progresses
By your logic we should all stop posting build orders because the opponent could rush you with 5 workers...
The OP is describing a very very flexible opener where you get the most economy if you follow it to the letter. Nobody said to do the opener blindly, no matter what happens.
If you don't understand that, then don't look at build orders anymore. But let the rest of us who DO understand how to use them post about it okay?
you wouldn't be able to carry out your build order without workers now would you. Build orders stifle creativity, and adaptability, if your going to follow a build order every game you could be a million points diamond, but if you just know how to follow build orders your either going to get messed up by early pressure, or lost in the late game when the build order stops. Notice you've never seen a build order that says "if this push fails do X" because everyone is so fucking confident in their build order that they don't see if failing.
If you are really so against Build Orders, just pretend the OPs post says 11 Overpool/18Hatch and leave it at that. That really is all it is. How is that different from saying 14 pool/16hatch, or something? These timings are necessary to know, otherwise you could be screwing yourself early on with suboptimal (read: bad) openers.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
Just wanted to post since there have been quite a number of 'negative' comments. I am a 1700-1800 currently diamond player (been going up). I was quite circumspect about this build when I saw it, but I figured I should try it.
Played 4 games last night with it, 2 vs. T, 2 vs. Z and I quite like it. I used to go 15h/14p vs T and 14g/14p vs Z. I won all 4 with this build and it worked quite beautifully, because the build is quite robust in the face of changes. I dropped gas at 15ish in all games, which is not that far off from when I would throw it down anyway. (slightly late in ZvZ due to overpool, slightly faster in ZvT due to late hatch). You will not have gas when pool finishes, but that is because pool finishes so much faster. However when Z speed comes (in my ZvZ) you will have more lings already.
As for how it deals with pylon block - actually better than a 15h/14p since when you see it you can get some quick lings to deal with it.
I'll post my games when I get home, since all include an extractor in the first 20.
I tested this build out in 4 ladder games this morning cause I was curious. I usually for for a 14 or 15 hatch/pool build being as greedy as possible with my initial scout except vs zerg where i go 14/15 pool. Initially it felt downright strange and I stumbled a lot with the different transitions. But I went 3-1 (opponents were a 2k plat P(W), 1650 diamond T(W), 1840 diamond P(L), 2100 diamond T(W) ).
The amount of early larva i had made handle 2 rax pressure MUCH easier. I think in retrospect I would have waited till lair tech to get a banelings nest since I was able to get so many lings out to respond. Once i shut that down and droned hard, macro won both T games with ease.
Both toss players went with gateway pressure. The first was more korean based, and on shakuras. I shut down his proxies easily with some lings and after 2 waves he tried to transition out and got overrun. The second and only loss I took was cause I simply scouted wrong. I saw 3 gates and a robo, and a FE so I thought I had a bit of time. But he went with 7 gates and a massive push when i was expecting robo. I defended it but was like 15 food behind after cleaning it up with drones and queens and spines. Never recovered despite some mass infestor delay tactics to get my econ back.
all in all, I think I'm going to stick with this build and explore how it transitions into different play styles and then integrate it into ideal matchups.
Quite a lot of arguing in this otherwise quite interesting thread. I wish I had a filter that removes all polemic posts. Anyway,
Transition to whatever you like. Seriously. You don't need someone to spell out the transitions for a 14 hatch 14 pool because you're not restricted in any way, and can transition in any way that is appropriate. This isn't any different.
Why is spelling out decent transitions and variants of a build order so bad? In the end everyone ends up improvising away, but to me it seems useful to do some research about the strongest variants in the very early game.
I don't mean to say that such variants have to be spelled out for this BO to be useful. I'm just saying, let's look at variants too.
I've been using this ever since you posted in the origninal BO testing post. It's actually great since if you see them not walling as terran or 15 hatching as zerg you can actually go all in and make lings instead of drone and outright kill him.
On December 03 2010 01:02 OriginalBeast wrote: Notice you've never seen a build order that says "if this push fails do X" because everyone is so fucking confident in their build order that they don't see if failing.
I thought we never saw that in a build order because we assumed competence and creativity on the part of the player?
Thats like saying you think everyone is good at the game. Everyone has played someone where they have though, "wow this guy is just terrible" I don't feel like these people should be overlooked, as a matter of fact I feel they have the lowest skill and highest potential, but if we tell everyone that doing one thing every game is optimal. Then their supported with everyone hopping on the bandwagon, they are going to look at their supply and think that is when they are supposed to make something reguardless. Assuming that someone who maybe in bronze level has creativity is absurd because not even some people in diamond have creativity. Think about protoss, 9/10 the thing protoss players go for is that colossus ball of death... not creative, not evolving the game. I wish we could all find out the most optimal responses to things, not the most optimal way to open a game and wish someone to be on their marry way. Last and the most fucking important thing to remember is that low skilled players may not be able to macro well enough for the most optimal opener ever, why not just say "build what you have money for, move out when your confident enough.
The more you say about higher skilled players the more you will be missing the point.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Why post a build order, just say maybe the first two numbers then use the format after X get Y. To you and me these things seem understandable, but to someone who is in lower leagues or someone whos first RTS is starcraft 2 they will read that as a plan they need to stick to, and if your really mean to aid someone in proving your point you can tell them what to get after something else and as there skill increases their ability will do it will increase and maybe a new optimal way to get things will evolve... which is what we all want for starcraft
not to mention, if something gets buffed or nerfed in a patch lowbies are going to wonder why they arent getting the things at the time they should be, which won't win your strategy any popularity as the game progresses
By your logic we should all stop posting build orders because the opponent could rush you with 5 workers...
The OP is describing a very very flexible opener where you get the most economy if you follow it to the letter. Nobody said to do the opener blindly, no matter what happens.
If you don't understand that, then don't look at build orders anymore. But let the rest of us who DO understand how to use them post about it okay?
you wouldn't be able to carry out your build order without workers now would you. Build orders stifle creativity, and adaptability, if your going to follow a build order every game you could be a million points diamond, but if you just know how to follow build orders your either going to get messed up by early pressure, or lost in the late game when the build order stops. Notice you've never seen a build order that says "if this push fails do X" because everyone is so fucking confident in their build order that they don't see if failing.
If you are really so against Build Orders, just pretend the OPs post says 11 Overpool/18Hatch and leave it at that. That really is all it is. How is that different from saying 14 pool/16hatch, or something? These timings are necessary to know, otherwise you could be screwing yourself early on with suboptimal (read: bad) openers.
shit man, if you use a bad opener and win the game does that make you a good player or does that make you an optimal player? To that question there is no complex answer, maybe we should all be trying bad openers, so that when we discover what works for us individually optimally from a human perspective, not a computer perspective its something to really share.
14 pool/ 16 hatch is fine, you can follow that every game no matter what pretty much, its when the build gets past that where I have a problem, every game I go 9 pylon 12 gate then I don't play optimally (*gasp) but does it make me a bad player, does it make me some kind of build order calculator that just knows when to place buildings? does it make me 100% adaptive? fuck no. Just means that I am playing the game at a rate in which I play it, when I scout sometimes I forget to put a probe in my nexus for a few seconds, that would mean that parts of this guys build are already thrown out the window maybe I accidently put down my pylon on 10, It dosen't mean I've instantly lost. A build order is something simple, because when you play, you will make mistakes, thus trying to play optimally isn't going to happen "well the pros play optimally all the time" but your not a fucking pro and neither is anyone else on this thread.
On December 03 2010 01:06 Dominator1370 wrote: Transition to whatever you like. Seriously. You don't need someone to spell out the transitions for a 14 hatch 14 pool because you're not restricted in any way, and can transition in any way that is appropriate. This isn't any different.
As far as gas timing, scouting, etc. it's the same: do it whenever you want, depending on what you want to do. The only time something like this should be noted is if doing so would effect the build in some way. For example, dropping down an Extractor before your Hatchery and putting 3 Drones in it likely screws up the timing of your Hatchery, but this is likely intuitive. Likewise, scouting on 10 could (I haven't checked) delay your Hatchery by a little bit. It might be beneficial to note at what time you can effectively scout without delaying your hatch, but that's something you should pick up if you play with it a few times. Once the hatch is down, though, you should be able to pretty much do whatever you want to do that makes sense. Overlord and Drone timings from then on obviously assume ideal, uninterrupted play. If your opponent is doing something you should probably react to it.
Sure, except he's relying on having no gas or a late gas to achieve his "maximum economy" with this build. That's a pretty big leave out, so the transition question is more so for how to transition to what you scout, since you're likely breaking build sequence way before 30.
Like, using the haploid build order tester, if you add in an extractor at 18 supply (and only spawn with queens, no creep), his build will have mined a total of 3431 minerals and 329 gas at 5:54. If you then alter that exact build to 14p/15h it will have mined a total of 3674 minerals and 277 gas at 5:56 and have 1 more mineral drone. In this case, the 14p/15 appears to have better economy as 340 minerals seems better to have than just over 50 extra gas. (note, I didn't even try to further optimize the second build for queen timing, etc.).
The adding of the gas is extremely important in this case, since the WHOLE POINT of his OP was to claim this is the best econ build. gas changes the picture greatly
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, Im just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, Im just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
what the hell is wrong with you?
I'd tell my friends to constantly build workers too.
But to make sure they weren't building 6depot7barracks8gas9factory. Id help them out with a build order to AIM FOR.
So because you cant do something properly yet? ITS BEST NOT TO TRY?
Just to preach a bit: obviously no build order will account for absolutely everything, and when attempting any BO, when you run into a wall, add folds to your gameplan. If you're convinced it doesn't work, find the alternative that works better, post it on TL so we can share in the glory lol. Part of the reason (most of the reason) this thread even exists is because the standard 14 hatch/whatever pool sometimes doesn't cut it on certain maps, due to (pylon wall in, pylon block, eng bay block, 2-rax marines, bunkers, CB double stalkers, etc etc), so here's an alternative that hypothetically could leave you not much worse economically, and is apparently more cheese proof. It's just the natural evolution/process of exploring new strategies.
That said, when I get home I'm going to test it more thoroughly to see how different variables would effect the build. There are some things that I typically do a lot/every game that, when taken into account, I'm uncertain as to how it effects the build. For example:
-Scouting drone/gas steal? How does removing a drone effect the build? -Can you fit one pair of early zerglings after pool? -When do you put down your extractor?
In the meantime, would like to hear from you guys who have tried it, how it effects the build (if at all!) thanks
You can't 'learn' to be optimal through trial and error except perhaps by luck. 'Optimal' is a quantifiable term. It means 'the best under some criteria'.
The OP has defined his criteria and after some local searching, has declared that his build is 'optimal'. If you want to argue, then you have to offer a counter example. The rant about execution by different level of players is irrelevant. The OP never said this was a guide for how to play or 'a build order tailored to peoples ladder ranking'. He said it was 'optimal'.
My main concern for this build is the lateness of the hatchery means you do not benefit from the extra larvae, faster queen or creep to place a defensive spine. I often wait for the queen to pop from my expansion and extra lings to crush offensive bunkers. What is your experience with that?
On December 02 2010 15:12 Conrose wrote: I think this build is quite vulnerable to hidden tech, particularly in the case of DTs, Phoenix openings, Banshees and Vikings. ZvZ, you'll really want to catch when they put down that Baneling Nest and hotkey your Drones. I also see early Muta harass being potentially dangerous with this BO. However, vs the current FotM builds, it is flexible enough to hold up.
Isn't every build vulnerable to hidden tech? I mean, if you haven't scouted their tech, how are you going to properly prepare for it?
When your opponent scouts an 11-pool, I think they'll be reluctant to tech straight to air and focus more on defensive measures. When they're fearful of a rush, they will pour funds into their army, delaying their tech and allowing this build to 'catch up,' although it seems like you're already ahead since you're fast teching to Spawning Pool and giving you the option of attacking or macro'ing.
And also, when you scout your opponent and see them fast teching with no (or few) units, transitioning into early aggression is a lot easier when you're Spawning Pool is already completed.
When your opponent shows early aggression, it's a lot easier to defend with your Spawning Pool completed. Spine Crawlers already take eons to build - it'd take a bit longer if you're waiting for the Spawning Pool to finish.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, Im just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
what the hell is wrong with you?
I'd tell my friends to constantly build workers too.
But to make sure they weren't building 6depot7barracks8gas9factory. Id help them out with a build order to AIM FOR.
So because you cant do something properly yet? ITS BEST NOT TO TRY?
You're a fucking retard son, i'm sorry to say it.
Listen here you stupid fuck, the thread is titled the new zerg standard, obviously in a game of infinate variables your trying to explain how doing one thing for every match is standard. Maybe you should think before you speak, and I don't give a shit what you tell your friends if they are in a low league, because when they try something that they have heard is standard and then have 1000 minerals and 1000 gas and come to you and say why isn't this standard/optimal build working for me your should feel like you forced them to play that way instead of just allowing them to spend their minerals how they see fit. So, if you weren't so fucking ignorant, and realized we were after the same thing except you want them to do it a certain way and I think they should be creative and play to what suits they style; that really makes you seem like a fucking retard unless you just make all your friends your bitch.
secondly when did I say that 6depo7barracks8gas9factory was what they should do? If you wern't such an asshole and/or taught your friends better as I see your so accustomed to they would learn over time that that wouldn't win games. However if you allow them to be creative, and allowed them to stray outside of the standards they could find something that sends you begging for their "build order" but seeing as your just a fucking faggot that would rather agree with everyone on the internet rather than provide any kind of insite to make people think in ways that would gain them further knowledge, I barely see why you feel like posting anything at all was necessary, other than to show that you and your posse of friends were complaint little bitches
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, Im just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
Your problem is obviously with build orders in general, and that's not the subject of this thread. Also to all the people saying things like : you didn't build a gas, or lings that's why this build is better economically: you are wrong. This build has been compaired to the others with the same assumptions (no lings produced / no gas). Should you chose to build lings with this build, I'm pretty sure you can have around the same amount than say a 14pool 14 gas at the same time, and probably still be ahead in workers.
On December 03 2010 01:45 OriginalBeast wrote: ... I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible...
...if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead...
...Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order"...
I think OriginalBeast and jdseemoreglass are working towards different purposes here. Beast has some valid points, if we remove the assumption that the player can make correct decisions. He's trying to protect the innocent newbie who can't tell good information from bad. He' trying to prevent the formation of bad habits and reliance on external crutches. It appears that jd's target audience was the more experienced crowd, who can recognize the merits and pitfalls of a proposed build order.. This explains why the points of contention between the two views seem irrelevant to each other.
I'm not sure how to address this. People will always attempt to use whatever tools they have at their disposal, even if they can't fully capitalize on their usefulness. Build Orders can be useful to the appropriate crowd, and the one presented in this thread has a lot of value to an appropriately skilled player. It will certainly be less effective, or even detrimental, to someone who doesn't have the foundation to use it.
I don't think this is grounds for dismissing it, or not posting it. The OP hasn't misrepresented any information, and he isn't responsible for someone using this information incorrectly. At best, we could put a disclaimer at the top suggesting this BO is targeted at more skilled players, but the net effect of that would likely be more attention and higher adoption. I admire your protectiveness, Beast, but I'd rather have this knowledge public and actively debated, than censored or never discussed. That's my opinion anyway.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, Im just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
Your problem is obviously with build orders in general, and that's not the subject of this thread. Also to all the people saying things like : you didn't build a gas, or lings that's why this build is better economically: you are wrong. This build has been compaired to the others with the same assumptions (no lings produced / no gas). Should you chose to build lings with this build, I'm pretty sure you can have around the same amount than say a 14pool 14 gas at the same time, and probably still be ahead in workers.
"you are wrong." no... read my last post, incorporating an 18 gas and switching the build to 14p/15h produces more drones and more resources than this build... the timing of the gas is what makes this not "optimal" and shouldn't then be considered standard.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, I'm just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
Who's making you out to be the bad guy? You're concerned that new players will take something that is clearly stated as a general guideline, as something that's gospel and to be done rigidly?
If anything the OP would agree with you, because the entire point of the build is to add flexibility; not take it away. So unknowingly, your intentions are aligned lol. Adding folds to your gameplay is a normal part of figuring out the game, as is taking the BO the wrong way, losing because the build doesn't explicitly include gas, and then figuring it out when to add it afterwards.
Not even sure you have a point man, all that really happened here was, OP posted a build order he figured out after some strenuous testing, and then suddenly you're here standing up for the newbies who might use it incorrectly. I think you really took his post entirely the wrong way.
So Lomilar has done a double win with his Evochamber. Everyone gets to try out builds, and then he creates a universal opener. It's nice to know that I can finally make a move that keeps my opponent vary, giving me opportunities to either go aggressive or build up.
While it's nice and good that the economy discussion is closed for now, how about the different varying situations that one will encounter on the ladder?
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, Im just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
Your problem is obviously with build orders in general, and that's not the subject of this thread. Also to all the people saying things like : you didn't build a gas, or lings that's why this build is better economically: you are wrong. This build has been compaired to the others with the same assumptions (no lings produced / no gas). Should you chose to build lings with this build, I'm pretty sure you can have around the same amount than say a 14pool 14 gas at the same time, and probably still be ahead in workers.
"you are wrong." no... read my last post, incorporating an 18 gas and switching the build to 14p/15h produces more drones and more resources than this build... the timing of the gas is what makes this not "optimal" and shouldn't then be considered standard.
In your test, you probably put the geiser a bit too early (hence the fact that you got more gas in the end). I would be interested of the mineral results if you delay it a bit more to have the same amount of gas than a 14p15h at 5:56. Intuitively your drone mines a bit more, allowing you to produce 1 more drone, mining a bit more himself.
However you have the right idea. Testing the build against similar builds and that's exactly what I'm saying :D.
Edit: also even though it could still be behind with a gas, I'm still a fan of this build for its hability to answer to early pushes, without being too far behind if the push doesn't come.
On December 03 2010 01:06 Dominator1370 wrote: Transition to whatever you like. Seriously. You don't need someone to spell out the transitions for a 14 hatch 14 pool because you're not restricted in any way, and can transition in any way that is appropriate. This isn't any different.
As far as gas timing, scouting, etc. it's the same: do it whenever you want, depending on what you want to do. The only time something like this should be noted is if doing so would effect the build in some way. For example, dropping down an Extractor before your Hatchery and putting 3 Drones in it likely screws up the timing of your Hatchery, but this is likely intuitive. Likewise, scouting on 10 could (I haven't checked) delay your Hatchery by a little bit. It might be beneficial to note at what time you can effectively scout without delaying your hatch, but that's something you should pick up if you play with it a few times. Once the hatch is down, though, you should be able to pretty much do whatever you want to do that makes sense. Overlord and Drone timings from then on obviously assume ideal, uninterrupted play. If your opponent is doing something you should probably react to it.
Sure, except he's relying on having no gas or a late gas to achieve his "maximum economy" with this build. That's a pretty big leave out, so the transition question is more so for how to transition to what you scout, since you're likely breaking build sequence way before 30.
Like, using the haploid build order tester, if you add in an extractor at 18 supply (and only spawn with queens, no creep), his build will have mined a total of 3431 minerals and 329 gas at 5:54. If you then alter that exact build to 14p/15h it will have mined a total of 3674 minerals and 277 gas at 5:56 and have 1 more mineral drone. In this case, the 14p/15 appears to have better economy as 340 minerals seems better to have than just over 50 extra gas. (note, I didn't even try to further optimize the second build for queen timing, etc.).
The adding of the gas is extremely important in this case, since the WHOLE POINT of his OP was to claim this is the best econ build. gas changes the picture greatly
Haploid's build order calculator shows 11 pool 18 hatch significantly behing 14 hatch 15 pool regardless of gas. I'm more inclined to believe that this is a result of an inaccurate simulation than that players are doctoring replays of actual in-game tests with the openings.
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but did the economy calculator take into account the fact that the extractor trick "in reality" loses you 10 minerals (25-15), since unless you cancel another building (not supposed to happen in the early game according to the BO) you won't be able to use the other 4 minerals refunded by cancelling the extractor?
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: A build order is something simple, because when you play, you will make mistakes, thus trying to play optimally isn't going to happen "well the pros play optimally all the time" but your not a fucking pro and neither is anyone else on this thread.
A build order is a blue print or guideline with the goal of optimizing your Starcraft 2 play. And this thread discusses a different blue print that may (or may not) do just that. If you do not agree with it, then you are more than welcomed to refute it with facts or with a logical foundation.
But if you're going to get emotional, go watch some porn, masturbate, calm down, then we can resume this conversation as mature males. You sound like a female.
"Trying to play optimally isn't going to happen" IF you don't try. Everyone can TRY to play optimally; whether they are successful depends on the: 1) The knowledge of how to play optimally. 2) The desire to play optimally. 3) The effort put into playing optimally.
The pros are the ones who tried so hard to play optimally, that they succeeded, to some degree.
This forum is here for the discussion of #1. Please don't tell us to not discuss possible scenarios and build orders because it doesn't conform to your beliefs.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, Im just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
Your problem is obviously with build orders in general, and that's not the subject of this thread. Also to all the people saying things like : you didn't build a gas, or lings that's why this build is better economically: you are wrong. This build has been compaired to the others with the same assumptions (no lings produced / no gas). Should you chose to build lings with this build, I'm pretty sure you can have around the same amount than say a 14pool 14 gas at the same time, and probably still be ahead in workers.
"you are wrong." no... read my last post, incorporating an 18 gas and switching the build to 14p/15h produces more drones and more resources than this build... the timing of the gas is what makes this not "optimal" and shouldn't then be considered standard.
In your test, you probably put the geiser a bit too early (hence the fact that you got more gas in the end). I would be interested of the mineral results if you delay it a bit more to have the same amount of gas than a 14p15h at 5:56. Intuitively your drone mines a bit more, allowing you to produce 1 more drone, mining a bit more himself.
However you have the right idea. Testing the build against similar builds and that's exactly what I'm saying :D.
Edit: also even though it could still be behind with a gas, I'm still a fan of this build for its hability to answer to early pushes, without being too far behind if the push doesn't come.
i have the results open still... his build with gas at 18 was mining 19.6 minerals/sec and 1.89 gas/sec, so the 14p/15h would still be significantly ahead at that mark.
and as far as being too early on the gas... we are still talking an 18 gas.. which means slow speedlings or late roaches versus early aggression (but i agree, my entire point of posting in this thread is that he should have added an extractor to show its actual economic standing versus the common openers)
The more I look at it, the more reason I think this should be the new standard build for Zerg. I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
total fail of op along with the thread title. this isn't marketing where you have to use superlatives to make it seem like it's the only best choice. also where are the pro replays to back up your statement? or do you think your thought process is superior to all GSL players that DO NOT USE THIS BUILD EVER?
a build that wastes SO many larva early on, can't be optimal. period. while waiting for 300 minerals (100 overlord 200 pool) at 11 supply you hatch stays at 3 larva and there will not spawn anymore which means your behind. there's a very good reason for 14 pool/16 hatch or 15 hatch/14 pool since these builds don't waste ANY larvae at all. this also means that all supply timings in a build that wastes larvae are not the same as in the regular builds which will reach the same supply count faster. testing while only building drones is also pretty much bullshit. if your opponent let's you do this your on a level where you can do any build and succeed...
and to add:
There is a real psychological value to this build as well. Once your opponent scouts your 11pool, he will likely overcompensate by playing more defensive and less macro-oriented. This of course is due to the widely held misconception that a 10 pool build "must do damage, or it is behind in economy." We have proven this to simply not be the case with this specific build.
and then if your opponent "overreacts" he does the perfect counter to your build... you cut drone production early on so YOU are behind! if the opponent forces you to make units instead of drones you will be even MORE behind. there is no misconception in that a 10 pool should do damage to make the build equal to an ECONOMICALLY one (which this build is not). to emphasize again you cut drones in the beginning to make this 11overpool (see liquipedia) there where enough threads already that did prove that overpool is inferior to a 10/11pool followed by extractor trick and there is no reason to overpool ever in sc2.
EDIT: people should really start to use common sense before trying to back something up with bs build calculators...
The more I look at it, the more reason I think this should be the new standard build for Zerg. I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
total fail of op along with the thread title. this isn't marketing where you have to use superlatives to make it seem like it's the only best choice. also where are the pro replays to back up your statement? or do you think your thought process is superior to all GSL players that DO NOT USE THIS BUILD EVER?
a build that wastes SO many larva early on, can't be optimal. period. while waiting for 300 minerals (100 overlord 200 pool) at 11 supply you hatch stays at 3 larva and there will not spawn anymore which means your behind. there's a very good reason for 14 pool/16 hatch or 15 hatch/14 pool since these builds don't waste ANY larvae at all. this also means that all supply timings in a build that wastes larvae are not the same as in the regular builds which will reach the same supply count faster. testing while only building drones is also pretty much bullshit. if your opponent let's you do this your on a level where you can do any build and succeed...
There is a real psychological value to this build as well. Once your opponent scouts your 11pool, he will likely overcompensate by playing more defensive and less macro-oriented. This of course is due to the widely held misconception that a 10 pool build "must do damage, or it is behind in economy." We have proven this to simply not be the case with this specific build.
and then if your opponent "overreacts" he does the perfect counter to your build... you cut drone production early on so YOU are behind! if the opponent forces you to make units instead of drones you will be even MORE behind. there is no misconception in that a 10 pool should do damage to make the build equal to an ECONOMICALLY one (which this build is not). to emphasize again you cut drones in the beginning to make this 11overpool (see liquipedia) there where enough threads already that did prove that overpool is inferior to a 10/11pool followed by extractor trick and there is no reason to overpool ever in sc2.
EDIT: people should really start to use common sense before trying to back something up with bs build calculators...
dude, that was fucking badass, I'm going to have to totally agree with this guy; I'm usually the kind that tries to find a counter argument, but you cant really argue with that.
Scouting and gas timing really impacts the fluidity of a build. While 11 Pool 18 Hatch looks good if you're JUST making drones, I think it starts to fall behind when you start to get gas, make some zerglings, etc. It can't support the extra larvae it gets form the quicker queen while still getting gas and metabolic and a hatchery, while 14 Hatch 15 Pool feels like it has less hiccups.
This is just from playing around with the builds, not any intense testing and I could very well be wrong. Personally I like how much smoother Hatch/+1 Pool feels compared to this build.
I'm going to say again: results from Haploid's build order calculator appear to be inconsistent with data collected from players collecting actual results in-game. Using results gathered in-game:
It takes 625 minerals per hatch (with Queen) per minute for constant drone production with overlords. With 2 hatches, this is a total requirement of 1250 minerals per minute. According to Liquidpedia, 3 workers on a mineral patch (the least efficient scenario) gather ~100 minerals per minute. Thus, it requires about 38 Drones mining minerals for constant Drone production off 2 hatches with Queens.
In other words, if you want to take gas before you have 38 Drones on minerals, you are going to clip your production on two hatches. For any realistic game, you want to take gas before this, whether you 11 pool 18 hatch, 14 hatch 15 pool, or any other build currently even close to standard that you can come up with.
So, getting your economy maxed before gas is more or less out. The next question is, does one build suffer more from losing Drones to gas than another? I'm not sure we can conclude this one way or the other without actual results, as one could speculate either way.
The more I look at it, the more reason I think this should be the new standard build for Zerg. I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
total fail of op along with the thread title. this isn't marketing where you have to use superlatives to make it seem like it's the only best choice. also where are the pro replays to back up your statement? or do you think your thought process is superior to all GSL players that DO NOT USE THIS BUILD EVER?
a build that wastes SO many larva early on, can't be optimal. period. while waiting for 300 minerals (100 overlord 200 pool) at 11 supply you hatch stays at 3 larva and there will not spawn anymore which means your behind. there's a very good reason for 14 pool/16 hatch or 15 hatch/14 pool since these builds don't waste ANY larvae at all. this also means that all supply timings in a build that wastes larvae are not the same as in the regular builds which will reach the same supply count faster. testing while only building drones is also pretty much bullshit. if your opponent let's you do this your on a level where you can do any build and succeed...
There is a real psychological value to this build as well. Once your opponent scouts your 11pool, he will likely overcompensate by playing more defensive and less macro-oriented. This of course is due to the widely held misconception that a 10 pool build "must do damage, or it is behind in economy." We have proven this to simply not be the case with this specific build.
and then if your opponent "overreacts" he does the perfect counter to your build... you cut drone production early on so YOU are behind! if the opponent forces you to make units instead of drones you will be even MORE behind. there is no misconception in that a 10 pool should do damage to make the build equal to an ECONOMICALLY one (which this build is not). to emphasize again you cut drones in the beginning to make this 11overpool (see liquipedia) there where enough threads already that did prove that overpool is inferior to a 10/11pool followed by extractor trick and there is no reason to overpool ever in sc2.
EDIT: people should really start to use common sense before trying to back something up with bs build calculators...
Just on this one point, you wouldn't be waiting for 300 minerals. You build the overlord on 11, then around the time the ovie pops you'll have 200 minerals for the spawning pool. You continue to pump drones at this point, and no, you absolutely do not waste any larvae.
to the people saying you lose larva with this build. in the short term yes, you lose a few seconds of larva production.
HOWEVER,
you make up for this with an early queen. a queen is like building a hatchery, except the larva are slightly delayed. so if the game goes to a point where larva are spawning from injects then i will actually be equal to or ahead of other builds in larva at the same point in the game.
the 11 pool is a tradeoff. what i gain is the ability to apply early pressure and a queen started on 15 supply. the tradeoff is an 18 hatch instead of 16 (probably a matter of seconds when in-game), and some lost larva production.
if you actually try the build and look at the economy graph it looks the same every time. small bump when u are mining at 10 opposed to the opponents 9. the opponent gains a small advantage when he moves to 12-15 and u are stuck on 11 waiting for the pool. but when larva start spawning YOU gain the advantage in worker count.
EDIT: Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. Suggesting that a 14 pool can get lings out faster than an 11 pool, or that adding early gas will destroy the whole build, or claiming certain deviations are impossible despite the fact I provided numerous replays with all sorts of variation in hatch, gas, and ling timing, clearly means they have no interest in even considering the build in question.
Those who recognize the amazing potential of this build will test it themselves and figure out how to make it work in any situation. I will begin testing later today to provide replays with faster speed, and also a ZvZ game that includes baneling aggession, etc.
Don't hold any trolls hand through common sense and logic, and don't throw pearls before swine.
On December 03 2010 00:22 OriginalBeast wrote: I can't tell you how honestly horrible it is to make a post like this, and yet everyday, there will be a new post with a "New best most optimal way to do X thing"
If you can answer this question then I will never rant about this again. What If your ramp gets pylon blocked, and all of your drones are stuck in your base? According to your plan... wait until the pylons go down and continue with making the hatch on 18...
Get lings and destroy the pylons while taking your gas or teching something ? I don't know... I'm just Gold, but that's what I would try and see the results.
If you read the OP, it says that it's just a general build, and that you have to adapt to the circumstances. Which is true for every existing build or strategy.
A plan is always something you come up with beforehand, and that you need to adapt when you are actually executing it.
Contradicting an idea with "what if" is just pointless. You can always find something that would put any plan in jeopardy. That's when decision making comes into play.
Reasonable people realize when to scout and that cheese is coming. People who are new to RTSs in general, see this and think "well this is optimal, when I do this im going to win" and follow it to every second. You dont need to tell me to adapt, im the one telling everyone else that they need to adapt, and that maybe following a "new optimal build" will lose you games if your not careful.
Read all the posts of people saying, yep im going to go do this now, out of all the pages and even views from people who didn't respond think of the people who wrote this down, memorized it, maybe practiced it against the A.I. and are going to go into a game thinking that its instant win because they have the reassurance of everyone else posting here saying, "yep sure is optimal" and "im going to go try it right now"
I will say im outnumbered, as I am not someone on the bandwagon, but If someone reads this and thinks "maybe I should have a plan B" or "if I see X I know I am most confident if I use Y" then I have done a good deed
From the very first post, nobody advocated being rigid with the build order.
General Build order: (Note: I said general. This is simply the optimal build from a purely economic standpoint. You can get gas at any point you feel comfortable. I want to avoid making an extremely flexible build less flexible by making assumptions about strategy.)
Like I've had to say a million times, I don't give a shit about the first post, I think its bullshit. I think that you can put the work general in there and people will still try following it as rigidly as possible. Stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here because I disagree with the OP, I'm just trying to make sure that people that aren't as good at the game are taken into consideration.
I mean its like if someone was like what should I do in starcraft, I wouldn't give them a build order. I would say "constantly make workers, don't get supply blocked, and eventually you'll get a feel for how many units you should have at different parts in the game." if someone followed those rules instead of your build order my person would be way ahead, because your person will get supply blocked and ultimately wont have an optimal economy because in the later stages of the game they will be lost.
Every build order thread can't be tailored to peoples ladder ranking, but you can't assume that someone from diamond using the "optimal build order" is going to have the same result as the person in bronze using the "optimal build order" build orders are just bullshit, if someone wants to rush for DTs they can 1 gate then twilight counsol then dark shrine, because the more they practice that the more optimal it will be for them and the more they will be able to refine it so that they dont have places where they feel they are exposed or unitless, again its not a matter of being optimal, its a matter of learning how to be optimal
Who's making you out to be the bad guy? You're concerned that new players will take something that is clearly stated as a general guideline, as something that's gospel and to be done rigidly?
If anything the OP would agree with you, because the entire point of the build is to add flexibility; not take it away. So unknowingly, your intentions are aligned lol. Adding folds to your gameplay is a normal part of figuring out the game, as is taking the BO the wrong way, losing because the build doesn't explicitly include gas, and then figuring it out when to add it afterwards.
Not even sure you have a point man, all that really happened here was, OP posted a build order he figured out after some strenuous testing, and then suddenly you're here standing up for the newbies who might use it incorrectly. I think you really took his post entirely the wrong way.
There are about three other people that are saying about the same thing here, but what happened was I read the build order as I do with all build orders (even if I don't feel that there a decent thing to base gameplay off of) and I just read, I heard of people saying how they were going to practice this build and people were doing math on it. Practice and math I have nothing against, and If you want to learn the build by all means do, I know that if your good at zerg and understand them having a build order can't be a setback. However, my problem came from just reading what people had to say! I felt like I saw people being lured in by promises of what the new standard was going to be. The thing Is, a while back I had a thread trying to predict what the games were going to look like in the future for all races, and it got closed. I don't feel like this should be closed, however it's the same thing just specifically for zerg, and its one person saying that this one build will be the standard. I often play with people many league below me, and I have gathered the information that how they play the game is they find the standard and then they find a hard counter to it. I have feel like I have shown them somewhat the game isn't predictable like that, and that if you look for a standard your going to over think things. Also I noticed that they don't have obviously the same skill ceiling as people who thought they knew what the standard was and that it was actually much higher from them. So, My main conclusion that I drew is that if you feel that a standard is predictable that you lower the skill ceiling for yourself, everyone that says that I have just words without meaning or information didn't know this until now admittedly, and guess I needed to be more up-front with the information. Finally, my overall point is that if you think that this is optimal, going to be the new standard, ect, thats fine, and some of the people I know feel there are standards to metagame and they make builds to counter the metagame, but as I have seen if you look past the counters, standards, and optimal builds, and just play the game you learn enough so that each time a new standard comes along its meaningless, because each game is taken as its own. It would actually make things a ton easier if people all just had a standard build that they played, it would prove me really really really wrong actually, build since I can't hop on ladder and say "OK, zerg so his build is going to be ___" why not hop on ladder and just play games and be adaptive in game instead of out of it.
I'm totally done with posting in this thread so if you have anymore hate mail just PM it to me, I mean this thread isn't even about the OPs build order anymore.
PS: I'm not so sure that I would believe that OP has ever used the build without proof I mean anyone could sit behind a build calculator and post results
Just on this one point, you wouldn't be waiting for 300 minerals. You build the overlord on 11, then around the time the ovie pops you'll have 200 minerals for the spawning pool. You continue to pump drones at this point, and no, you absolutely do not waste any larvae.
your waiting for 300 minerals while not building drones at 11 supply... this really needed an explanation? and you waste larvae. you do not have the economy at 11 drones to not spawn 3 larvae at your hatch while waiting for 300! minerals. also the other builds have more drones out at this point so you also lose mining time!
the 11 pool is a tradeoff. what i gain is the ability to apply early pressure and a queen started on 15 supply. the tradeoff is an 18 hatch instead of 16 (probably a matter of seconds when in-game), and some lost larva production.
it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
plus you both ignored that you HAVE TO BUILD drones to CATCH UP in the drone count, meaning any early pressure will set you more behind. i admit you that can defend easier IF you safed your larvae with your 11 pool but this also sets you behind even more since your not building drones...
edit:
Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. Suggesting that a 14 pool can get lings out faster than an 11 pool, or that adding early gas will destroy the whole build, or claiming certain deviations are impossible despite the fact I provided numerous replays with all sorts of variation in hatch, gas, and ling timing, clearly means they have no interest in even considering the build in question.
then try to explain my points or am i one of those trolls in your oppinion? i'm just pointing out the obvious flaws so it should be easy for your super build. and yes YOU provided replays but where's the replays of actual top players?
On December 03 2010 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote: EDIT: Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. Suggesting that a 14 pool can get lings out faster than an 11 pool, or that adding early gas will destroy the whole build, or claiming certain deviations are impossible despite the fact I provided numerous replays with all sorts of variation in hatch, gas, and ling timing, clearly means they have no interest in even considering the build in question.
Those who recognize the amazing potential of this build will test it themselves and figure out how to make it work in any situation. I will begin testing later today to provide replays with faster speed, and also a ZvZ game that includes baneling aggession, etc.
Don't hold any trolls hand through common sense and logic, and don't throw pearls before swine.
so true. common sense and critical thinking are almost relics of an age long forgotten, especially to our ADD american kids. reading comprehension is an important skill to have. not for starcraft, for life.
i just 11 pooled on lt. droned up. saw the terran was going for a fast expand and i decided to see if i could break him with lings. and i did easily.
i wanted to mention that i double gas at 18, and when drones start popping off spawn larva's i fill them up. there will be ~16 drones mining minerals at 18. i leave them alone, and rally the new ones to gas.
On December 02 2010 21:32 thenanox wrote: i remeber in one of TL threads that they speak about what is more optimal, and actually it was 12 pool with double extractor trick. Also i remember in bold text that NEVER OVERPOOL in this game
More optimal for what? 12overpool off a double extractor is behind 11overpool in both larvae and minerals at pretty much every point. And 12pool before overlord wastes a *ton* of larvae early on, which is the very worst time to be wasting larvae.
And there's a really really good chance that the bolded never overpool text was posted by me. Whenever I've done that, I've been referring specifically to 10overpool, which is always bad, and you should never do, because pretty much every other single build is always better than it. 11overpool obviously can be fine though, since it turns out it provides one of the most economic options available to zerg, surpassed only by 14hatch/15pool or 14h/14p.
On December 03 2010 02:30 CtrlAltDefeat wrote: I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but did the economy calculator take into account the fact that the extractor trick "in reality" loses you 10 minerals (25-15), since unless you cancel another building (not supposed to happen in the early game according to the BO) you won't be able to use the other 4 minerals refunded by cancelling the extractor?
On December 02 2010 22:34 Markwerf wrote: It's fairly obvious a earlier pool build would be more economical in the scenario where you don't get gas or lings at all for the early game. That however is quite unrealistic and thus this build is far from as efficient as it looks.. Sure getting the queen asap provides more drones but if you are getting lings as well you can't use all drones anyway... This build is much less efficient early on but makes up for it later on because the first inject is earlier, however assuming you can just drone up completely is unrealistic.
11 pool builds are crap in ZvT imo where you can't drone like this anyway and just set your own economy back needlessly. In ZvP it's a different case as fast pools automatically deny some builds (like nexus first) and also provide a anti-scout very early, however this build doesn't include an early pair of lings so once again is useless as such, if you try a fast pool build like this at least include an early pair of lings..
Builds that don't include units and don't include scouting should just be banned from the forum really, its just useless in practice anyways. Add lings & scouting to this build and you will notice you will have a mineral shortage somewhere, ie. you can't drone as hard as you like. As a result this build is less efficient economy wise as 14 pool or 14 hatch. Not saying the build is useless but it will in no way be mainstream.
I am sorry if I sound aggressive, but this post really bothers me. Firstly, it is not obvious at all that such an early pool can compete with a 14 hatch 14/15 pool build. In fact that fact is amazing.
Second, for obvious reasons building lings reduces the number of drones you build. However, unless you provide some argument, I will assume that the impact on the economy is very similar both for this build and for 14 hatch 14 pool. The only exception is when you build a lot of lings before the pool for 14 hatch 14 pool finishes, then there is no comparison possible. But loosing 6 lings in defense of an extremely early rush is better than loosing 6 drones, so this build is better of economically.
As a third, the OP does not include a scout or fighting units on purpose. Instead he assumes that you have a brain to scout when you think it is needed instead of when some magic list on the internet told you to do so. Same with fighting units. This is no 3 roach rush, the aim is to have the option to have an extremely strong economy with an early pool.
As a final comment, your overzealous wish to ban one of the few truly constructive and innovative threads is so misguided it just baffles me. This thread contains a valid buildorder, a lot of testing and data on how it performs in a purely economic setting, a lot of replays you probably did not watch and many positive responses by zerg players who have tried it out.
Ugh thought people could figure builds out themselves a bit... The assumption that making lings instead of drones has the same impact on a 11 pool build as a 14 pool build is quite stupid. A 11 pool is economically worse then a regular 14 pool because you cut drones to get the pool faster.. This however is made up LATER by the fact that you are able to get a queen faster and thus catch up in the drone race. However you are only able to catch up in drones IF you have the minerals to continously drone after putting down that pool, in other scenario's 14 pool is just better. Thus a 11 pool being forced to make lings instead of drones later WILL be behind compared to a 11 pool especially if you had to scout as well. Just test this out for your self... You can't pump lings + use larvae non-stop + expo at the same time if you 11-pooled because you've cut too many drones at first and you have too much larvae, that only works with no scouting and no lings... Because the OP excluded scouting and early lings in his build he is led to believe that a 11 pool can drone up normally and thus catch up with a 14 pool. In a REAL game however you need to scout and need to make lings and you will NOT be able to catch up to a 14 pool.
SO in a normal game 14 pool > 11 pool. Sure the OP or anyone in this thread can claim that 11 pool is economically better but unless you live in fairyland where defense and scouting isn't neccesary this is simply not true... Note that I don't think 11 pool is bad, I actually think it's quite good in ZvP on 2 player maps (or if you expect the P to FE) because it can put off the timings P has. Saying it's economically better then 14 pool is just bullshit though...
Each replay of the OP using 11 pool and 'adjusting' just led him to a inferior build compared to 14 pool.
Just on this one point, you wouldn't be waiting for 300 minerals. You build the overlord on 11, then around the time the ovie pops you'll have 200 minerals for the spawning pool. You continue to pump drones at this point, and no, you absolutely do not waste any larvae.
your waiting for 300 minerals while not building drones at 11 supply... this really needed an explanation? and you waste larvae. you do not have the economy at 11 drones to not spawn 3 larvae at your hatch while waiting for 300! minerals. also the other builds have more drones out at this point so you also lose mining time!
the 11 pool is a tradeoff. what i gain is the ability to apply early pressure and a queen started on 15 supply. the tradeoff is an 18 hatch instead of 16 (probably a matter of seconds when in-game), and some lost larva production.
it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
plus you both ignored that you HAVE TO BUILD drones to CATCH UP in the drone count, meaning any early pressure will set you more behind. i admit you that can defend easier IF you safed your larvae with your 11 pool but this also sets you behind even more since your not building drones...
Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. Suggesting that a 14 pool can get lings out faster than an 11 pool, or that adding early gas will destroy the whole build, or claiming certain deviations are impossible despite the fact I provided numerous replays with all sorts of variation in hatch, gas, and ling timing, clearly means they have no interest in even considering the build in question.
then try to explain my points or am i one of those trolls in your oppinion? i'm just pointing out the obvious flaws so it should be easy for your super build. and yes YOU provided replays but where's the replays of actual top players?
Dude, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
At 11 supply, ONCE YOU HIT 100 MINERALS, YOU BUILD AN OVERLORD.
Got it? Once more: YOU BUILD AN OVERLORD
That takes 1 larva. You are never sitting on 3 larva in this build. You have not watched a single replay in this thread, and you have never tried the build yourself.
Until you're willing to actually have a look at this build, please shut the fuck up.
I used this build against my toss practice partner 3 times last night and I must say it's pretty awesome.
Just on this one point, you wouldn't be waiting for 300 minerals. You build the overlord on 11, then around the time the ovie pops you'll have 200 minerals for the spawning pool. You continue to pump drones at this point, and no, you absolutely do not waste any larvae.
your waiting for 300 minerals while not building drones at 11 supply... this really needed an explanation? and you waste larvae. you do not have the economy at 11 drones to not spawn 3 larvae at your hatch while waiting for 300! minerals. also the other builds have more drones out at this point so you also lose mining time!
the 11 pool is a tradeoff. what i gain is the ability to apply early pressure and a queen started on 15 supply. the tradeoff is an 18 hatch instead of 16 (probably a matter of seconds when in-game), and some lost larva production.
it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
plus you both ignored that you HAVE TO BUILD drones to CATCH UP in the drone count, meaning any early pressure will set you more behind. i admit you that can defend easier IF you safed your larvae with your 11 pool but this also sets you behind even more since your not building drones...
Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. Suggesting that a 14 pool can get lings out faster than an 11 pool, or that adding early gas will destroy the whole build, or claiming certain deviations are impossible despite the fact I provided numerous replays with all sorts of variation in hatch, gas, and ling timing, clearly means they have no interest in even considering the build in question.
then try to explain my points or am i one of those trolls in your oppinion? i'm just pointing out the obvious flaws so it should be easy for your super build. and yes YOU provided replays but where's the replays of actual top players?
im going to say this once.
i just did the build. the amount of larva time wasted is between 5-10 seconds MAX (maybe less if u are more prompt, i am a mere human), quickly made up when your first spawn larva pops. if you actually tried it you would see for yourself.
i think this replay (just played) shows what this build is capable of. i drone up quickly, getting workers mining asap is key, thelonger they are mining the more resources they bring in. i have my bases saturated before he does. i dont think there are any points in this game where i am behind in worker count.
then i see he is expanding but not with many units so i change to ling mode. lings off 2 hatches easily overruns his base. with my drone count i had more then enough minerals to support a third hatch and queens.
On December 03 2010 01:38 Bitters wrote: Like, using the haploid build order tester, if you add in an extractor at 18 supply (and only spawn with queens, no creep), his build will have mined a total of 3431 minerals and 329 gas at 5:54. If you then alter that exact build to 14p/15h it will have mined a total of 3674 minerals and 277 gas at 5:56 and have 1 more mineral drone. In this case, the 14p/15 appears to have better economy as 340 minerals seems better to have than just over 50 extra gas. (note, I didn't even try to further optimize the second build for queen timing, etc.).
The adding of the gas is extremely important in this case, since the WHOLE POINT of his OP was to claim this is the best econ build. gas changes the picture greatly
You *CAN NOT* use timing from haploid's tester to say build x is better than build y at any point, for any reason.
All these build order testers and optimizers simply do not take the reality of the game into account. For example, in the other thread, somebody posted an 11hatch/12pool build order that one of the optimizers came up with, saying it would be superior to all the other builds in the thread, when in actuality, it turns out that the build is completely impossible to implement as listed, because the timings are all off, because it wasn't actually based on the reality of the game.
So go ahead and test in-game if you think it makes a difference. The results might be similar, they might not. But for the love of god people, you can't rely on these simulations that don't actually reflect what happens in the game.
On December 03 2010 02:50 fleeze wrote: also where are the pro replays to back up your statement? or do you think your thought process is superior to all GSL players that DO NOT USE THIS BUILD EVER?
This statement would carry more weight if there weren't so many GSL games decided at the beginning of the match - specifically, the point where a hatchery-first Zerg is rushed and permanently crippled for the remainder of the (7-10 minute) game.
Just on this one point, you wouldn't be waiting for 300 minerals. You build the overlord on 11, then around the time the ovie pops you'll have 200 minerals for the spawning pool. You continue to pump drones at this point, and no, you absolutely do not waste any larvae.
your waiting for 300 minerals while not building drones at 11 supply... this really needed an explanation? and you waste larvae. you do not have the economy at 11 drones to not spawn 3 larvae at your hatch while waiting for 300! minerals. also the other builds have more drones out at this point so you also lose mining time!
the 11 pool is a tradeoff. what i gain is the ability to apply early pressure and a queen started on 15 supply. the tradeoff is an 18 hatch instead of 16 (probably a matter of seconds when in-game), and some lost larva production.
it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
plus you both ignored that you HAVE TO BUILD drones to CATCH UP in the drone count, meaning any early pressure will set you more behind. i admit you that can defend easier IF you safed your larvae with your 11 pool but this also sets you behind even more since your not building drones...
Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. Suggesting that a 14 pool can get lings out faster than an 11 pool, or that adding early gas will destroy the whole build, or claiming certain deviations are impossible despite the fact I provided numerous replays with all sorts of variation in hatch, gas, and ling timing, clearly means they have no interest in even considering the build in question.
then try to explain my points or am i one of those trolls in your oppinion? i'm just pointing out the obvious flaws so it should be easy for your super build. and yes YOU provided replays but where's the replays of actual top players?
Thanks for clarifying, that was my mistake. After you save up 200 minerals to put down the spawning pool, you'll be sitting on 3 larvae for about 6-7 seconds. (in the original thread with 11 pool, 18 hatch replay, 1:31-1:38)
[ The assumption that making lings instead of drones has the same impact on a 11 pool build as a 14 pool build is quite stupid.
you have to consider that your opponent is scouting an 11 pool. people are much less likely to try early aggression when your unit production building is completed before theirs, + the fact that if you wanted YOU could be the one attacking them, and they must be ready for that as well.
ive had a few people (less then 3) try marine rushing me. it simply does not work against 11 pool. you have enough larva to make lings and drones during the rush.
The more I look at it, the more reason I think this should be the new standard build for Zerg. I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
total fail of op along with the thread title. this isn't marketing where you have to use superlatives to make it seem like it's the only best choice. also where are the pro replays to back up your statement? or do you think your thought process is superior to all GSL players that DO NOT USE THIS BUILD EVER?
a build that wastes SO many larva early on, can't be optimal. period.
Uh. It does waste some larva spawn time early on (not much, but clearly some), but ends up *ahead* on larvae. That's the power of the early queen, and the whole point of the post to begin with, that a very counter-intuitive build can actually turn out to compete very closely economically with builds that are generally believed to be much more economic builds, while allowing much more flexibility and early safety.
As far as trusting the behaviors of GSL players as gospel goes...
you do realize that some of the best players in the gsl still 10OL, which is provably the worst of all the alternatives? 9OL, 11OL off an extractor trick, and 12OL off a double trick are all superior to 10OL in every possible way, yet we still see players in the GSL going 10OL. Why do you suppose that is?
Ugh thought people could figure builds out themselves a bit... The assumption that making lings instead of drones has the same impact on a 11 pool build as a 14 pool build is quite stupid. A 11 pool is economically worse then a regular 14 pool because you cut drones to get the pool faster.. This however is made up LATER by the fact that you are able to get a queen faster and thus catch up in the drone race. However you are only able to catch up in drones IF you have the minerals to continously drone after putting down that pool, in other scenario's 14 pool is just better. Thus a 11 pool being forced to make lings instead of drones later WILL be behind compared to a 11 pool especially if you had to scout as well. Just test this out for your self... You can't pump lings + use larvae non-stop + expo at the same time if you 11-pooled because you've cut too many drones at first and you have too much larvae, that only works with no scouting and no lings... Because the OP excluded scouting and early lings in his build he is led to believe that a 11 pool can drone up normally and thus catch up with a 14 pool. In a REAL game however you need to scout and need to make lings and you will NOT be able to catch up to a 14 pool.
SO in a normal game 14 pool > 11 pool. Sure the OP or anyone in this thread can claim that 11 pool is economically better but unless you live in fairyland where defense and scouting isn't neccesary this is simply not true... Note that I don't think 11 pool is bad, I actually think it's quite good in ZvP on 2 player maps (or if you expect the P to FE) because it can put off the timings P has. Saying it's economically better then 14 pool is just bullshit though...
Each replay of the OP using 11 pool and 'adjusting' just led him to a inferior build compared to 14 pool.
THIS!
Dude, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
At 11 supply, ONCE YOU HIT 100 MINERALS, YOU BUILD AN OVERLORD.
Got it? Once more: YOU BUILD AN OVERLORD
That takes 1 larva. You are never sitting on 3 larva in this build. You have not watched a single replay in this thread, and you have never tried the build yourself.
Until you're willing to actually have a look at this build, please shut the fuck up.
I used this build against my toss practice partner 3 times last night and I must say it's pretty awesome.
ok mister i fail at reading comprehension. i already that it's meant as 300 minerals NOT BUILDING DRONES. and yes you will lose larvae... as in
i just did the build. the amount of larva time wasted is between 5-10 seconds MAX (maybe less if u are more prompt, i am a mere human), quickly made up when your first spawn larva pops. if you actually tried it you would see for yourself.
5-10 seconds that you carry through the whole game! your 18 supply is 5-10 seconds LATER then a regular builds 18 supply. is that so hard to understand?
This statement would carry more weight if there weren't so many GSL games decided at the beginning of the match - specifically, the point where a hatchery-first Zerg is rushed and permanently crippled for the remainder of the (7-10 minute) game.
ok, i'd also take any MLG game. this statement doesn't care about a league it's really easy: there are no pros using this build! and to explain further: don't you think any progamers be it in their houses in korea or ROOT/EG voiceserver would have found out WAY before the op IF this build was superior to any build used at the moment?
it's really pointless arguing in here with that low reading comprehension skills and no common sense at all. seriously i don't think my points are THAT hard to understand yet nearly noone got them. basing your opinion on a WRONG build tester is surely better than using common sense which reveals the flaws if you just think about it for a moment.
On December 03 2010 03:13 Dominator1370 wrote: I'm going to say again: results from Haploid's build order calculator appear to be inconsistent with data collected from players collecting actual results in-game. Using results gathered in-game:
Yes. It is absolutely inconsistent. Because the calculator takes shortcuts, and doesn't model what actually happens in the game.
Which is why it really pisses me off when people take results from an optimizer or a build order calculator and try to use them to debunk results from actual games. You can't simply take the results from a calculator without doing the comparisons in-game.
On December 03 2010 03:58 Markwerf wrote: ...you are only able to catch up in drones IF you have the minerals to continously drone after putting down that pool, in other scenario's 14 pool is just better [economically]...
...the OP excluded scouting and early lings in his build ... led to believe that a 11 pool can drone up normally and thus catch up with a 14 pool. In a REAL game however you need to scout and .. make lings ... you will NOT be able to catch up to a 14 pool.
...the OP or anyone in this thread can claim that 11 pool is economically better but unless you live in fairyland where defense and scouting isn't neccesary this is simply not true...
It does appear that the 11 Overpool is sacrificing a little economic strength for Safety. Of the builds analyzed so far, 11 Overpool appears to give the most flexibility at the least cost, which is why this thread was suggested. I'm not certain if it will/should become the 'standard', but there's something worth exploring here.
If we're worried about scout timing, let's make some assumptions and test it. Let's assume that we're going to lose a drone entirely to the scouting process, and do some tests where we peel off the drone at different supply values. Or, we could pop a single pair of 'lings immediately after the pool is up, use them to scout, and assume they both die in the process. We can check the impact of various extractor timings and gas collector counts on the pure build, and then again on the 'scouting' build.
These are concrete things we can test, with results that are meaningful. Let's do that instead of arguing about the 'what ifs'.
The more I look at it, the more reason I think this should be the new standard build for Zerg. I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
total fail of op along with the thread title. this isn't marketing where you have to use superlatives to make it seem like it's the only best choice. also where are the pro replays to back up your statement? or do you think your thought process is superior to all GSL players that DO NOT USE THIS BUILD EVER?
a build that wastes SO many larva early on, can't be optimal. period.
Uh. It does waste some larva spawn time early on (not much, but clearly some), but ends up *ahead* on larvae. That's the power of the early queen, and the whole point of the post to begin with, that a very counter-intuitive build can actually turn out to compete very closely economically with builds that are generally believed to be much more economic builds, while allowing much more flexibility and early safety.
exactly my point. and if you "tricked" your opponent in thinking you will use early aggression due to early pool resulting in him building more units you won't be able to use your first spawn larvae cycle on drones which you need to catch up. thus you are behind.
As far as trusting the behaviors of GSL players as gospel goes...
you do realize that some of the best players in the gsl still 10OL, which is provably the worst of all the alternatives? 9OL, 11OL off an extractor trick, and 12OL off a double trick are all superior to 10OL in every possible way, yet we still see players in the GSL going 10OL. Why do you suppose that is?
@people bashing on BOs in general(which I would say BTW is rather off-topic): go check some of gosucoaching training out there. pros like Machine have a predetermined rough-order-of-magnitude BO up to like 50 supply.
Do they use the exact same shit up to 50 supply every game? Obviously not, but they know what they're shooting for, and what are the pros and the cons of shooting for it.
The OP's opening stops at 18 supply. The general idea is to get a 11overpool+16queen+18hatch then go from there. He's not like he was trying to show you the fastest way to ultralisks. Can shit hit the fan before 18 supply? Certainly. If this happen, would you rather have a 50% completed pool or a 100% one?
@people bashing on this specific BO because it was made with Evo chamber: did you even read the thread where it was originated? This build was tested in-game on slow speed on same map position against several other builds, and the only build who could beat it slightly at the 6min benchmark was a hatch first.
I can't believe how people are so close-minded fanboys. "If it doesn't come from GSL it's crap and this thread should be deleted and there's no way I'm gonna waste 5min of my life to try it out."... come on.
haha right.. i'm a troll because i said adding in extractor timing to an early pool build reduces it's economic effectiveness (since the only economic benefit from early pool is early queen, for faster larvae injections, and throwing 4 drones to extractor/gas before 20-30 supply reduces your ability to use all that early larvae) when compared to 14p/15h openers (backed up with a source)... yes i'm completely nonsensical and logic escapes me /eyeroll
edit: and yet people applaud those saying stuff like "I played FOUR games with this and won 3(or4) of them so this build MUST BE GOOD!"... right because opponent quality, how you actually played out the rest of the game and the MASSIVE sample size sure provide conclusive evidence.
I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early, you're shorter on minerals with which to spend those larvae. The 6 minute test the OP refered to shows that it's possible to get a lot of drones with this build order because you have a lot of larvae, but the total minerals mined is behind the standard builds. In a real game, you have expenses not accounted for in that 6 minute test (zerglings, crawlers, extractor, zergling speed). Since you're short on early drones and can't drone freely to catch up, you don't have the economy to support production out of your 2 hatcheries + queens.
It's a reasonable opening in ZvZ because it's a decent economy build that counters both hatch first and 7 pool. It's slightly behind 14-pool and roughly even with gas before pool.
On December 02 2010 22:34 Markwerf wrote: It's fairly obvious a earlier pool build would be more economical in the scenario where you don't get gas or lings at all for the early game. That however is quite unrealistic and thus this build is far from as efficient as it looks.. Sure getting the queen asap provides more drones but if you are getting lings as well you can't use all drones anyway... This build is much less efficient early on but makes up for it later on because the first inject is earlier, however assuming you can just drone up completely is unrealistic.
11 pool builds are crap in ZvT imo where you can't drone like this anyway and just set your own economy back needlessly. In ZvP it's a different case as fast pools automatically deny some builds (like nexus first) and also provide a anti-scout very early, however this build doesn't include an early pair of lings so once again is useless as such, if you try a fast pool build like this at least include an early pair of lings..
Builds that don't include units and don't include scouting should just be banned from the forum really, its just useless in practice anyways. Add lings & scouting to this build and you will notice you will have a mineral shortage somewhere, ie. you can't drone as hard as you like. As a result this build is less efficient economy wise as 14 pool or 14 hatch. Not saying the build is useless but it will in no way be mainstream.
I am sorry if I sound aggressive, but this post really bothers me. Firstly, it is not obvious at all that such an early pool can compete with a 14 hatch 14/15 pool build. In fact that fact is amazing.
Second, for obvious reasons building lings reduces the number of drones you build. However, unless you provide some argument, I will assume that the impact on the economy is very similar both for this build and for 14 hatch 14 pool. The only exception is when you build a lot of lings before the pool for 14 hatch 14 pool finishes, then there is no comparison possible. But loosing 6 lings in defense of an extremely early rush is better than loosing 6 drones, so this build is better of economically.
As a third, the OP does not include a scout or fighting units on purpose. Instead he assumes that you have a brain to scout when you think it is needed instead of when some magic list on the internet told you to do so. Same with fighting units. This is no 3 roach rush, the aim is to have the option to have an extremely strong economy with an early pool.
As a final comment, your overzealous wish to ban one of the few truly constructive and innovative threads is so misguided it just baffles me. This thread contains a valid buildorder, a lot of testing and data on how it performs in a purely economic setting, a lot of replays you probably did not watch and many positive responses by zerg players who have tried it out.
Ugh thought people could figure builds out themselves a bit... The assumption that making lings instead of drones has the same impact on a 11 pool build as a 14 pool build is quite stupid. A 11 pool is economically worse then a regular 14 pool because you cut drones to get the pool faster.. This however is made up LATER by the fact that you are able to get a queen faster and thus catch up in the drone race. However you are only able to catch up in drones IF you have the minerals to continously drone after putting down that pool, in other scenario's 14 pool is just better. Thus a 11 pool being forced to make lings instead of drones later WILL be behind compared to a 11 pool especially if you had to scout as well. Just test this out for your self... You can't pump lings + use larvae non-stop + expo at the same time if you 11-pooled because you've cut too many drones at first and you have too much larvae, that only works with no scouting and no lings... Because the OP excluded scouting and early lings in his build he is led to believe that a 11 pool can drone up normally and thus catch up with a 14 pool. In a REAL game however you need to scout and need to make lings and you will NOT be able to catch up to a 14 pool.
SO in a normal game 14 pool > 11 pool. Sure the OP or anyone in this thread can claim that 11 pool is economically better but unless you live in fairyland where defense and scouting isn't neccesary this is simply not true... Note that I don't think 11 pool is bad, I actually think it's quite good in ZvP on 2 player maps (or if you expect the P to FE) because it can put off the timings P has. Saying it's economically better then 14 pool is just bullshit though...
Each replay of the OP using 11 pool and 'adjusting' just led him to a inferior build compared to 14 pool.
This is a good point; if you were forced to make lings early on to defend, you likely could've defended it with a 14 pool anyway. In this situation, where you're not able to pump drones as you'd like to, even with an early queen for spawn larvae, would you be able to catch up to a 14 pool? I have a feeling you wouldn't be able to, but will need to test.
So then we say, well in a best case scenario an 11 pool/18 hatch comes out ahead, because you can catch up in drone count because of an early queen... but in a best case scenario you may as well of 14 hatch/15 pooled.
Fleeze, if you want to feel better about it, you can double extractor trick overpool and not lose any larva. It is actually comparable but behind. Double Ex Trick eco opening -- It is behind because the double extractor trick delays the queen further.
I seriously doubt you have played the build, because you would realize that you get the queen as fast as reasonably possible. It lines up perfectly to get the queen at 16 when the spawning pool pops. And once you have her, then you make up for the oh, maybe half a larva (seriously, you sit at 3 larva for maybe 7-10 seconds) with a queen worth of larva at an earlier time.
Something I have hated, and apparently Artosis hates too is that I can't count the number of games I have seen Zerg lose in the GSL to early pressure because they hatched before pool. Terran standard builds against zerg include early pressure. 4 marine pressure. 5 marine+one tank pressure. Double hellion pressure. Banshee pressure. And guess what? In most hatch first cases, the terran does damage with those if not outright wins.
And what does hatch before pool get you? -- Exactly that. A few more minerals, if you don't outright die.
Pro gamers are not immune to making mistakes. Especially rampantly popular mistakes. This is why. Hatch first builds always seem like they should be better, because either A) you get more minerals with workers split evenly over two bases earlier, which is wrong unless you have > 16 drones, and even then only really true at 24+ drones... Or B) You get more larva to make more workers, but this is wrong because you are delaying the queens to get a hatch up earlier, and a queen is at least equivalent to a hatchery when it comes to larva production, assuming you keep up.
In short, hatch first gets you damn near nothing except creep and 2 more supply, and in trade you mostly just die.
We spent 17 pages of thread and collectively over a hundred games against the very easy computer making sure this assumption from an economic standpoint was true.
If you want to argue effectively, provide evidence. This is done in the form of data. Provide replays. Do the work to prove us wrong. Because we have done the work that proves us right.
Like the guy who mentioned an 18 gas in both builds puts you behind to a 14 pool 15 hatch. That is legitimate. I think there is a correct answer to that, maybe gas way before hatch at 15, or gas after the hatch starts at 19, because a gas at 18 conflicts directly with the mineral gathering for the second hatch.
I don't mind this. But please, please, please stop making unfounded arguments because you happened to be born with an opinion.
On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early, you're shorter on minerals with which to spend those larvae. The 6 minute test the OP refered to shows that it's possible to get a lot of drones with this build order because you have a lot of larvae, but the total minerals mined is behind the standard builds. In a real game, you have expenses not accounted for in that 6 minute test (zerglings, crawlers, extractor, zergling speed). Since you're short on early drones and can't drone freely to catch up, you don't have the economy to support production out of your 2 hatcheries + queens.
It's a reasonable opening in ZvZ because it's a decent economy build that counters both hatch first and 7 pool. It's slightly behind 14-pool and roughly even with gas before pool.
So tell me, how short are you on drones? And at what points in time? Do you know? Have you even tested it or compared it to any other build? Have you even looked at the graph I posted in the OP link, and seen that 11Pool leads every other build tested in total drones at the earliest point tested?
And do you realize this build leads every other pool-first build in minerals mined? Have you tried going hatch-first recently against terran, zerg, or protoss?
Everyone who is making comments about the economics of this build, PLEASE, go click on the link I provided in the OP where we provide in detail the economics of this and many other builds at many times. That is also the place to discuss the notion of maximizing economy.
dude lomilar just admitted that when gas is taken into account other builds beat it, so maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board to include that before you call something standard
On December 03 2010 04:36 Lomilar wrote: Fleeze, if you want to feel better about it, you can double extractor trick overpool and not lose any larva. It is actually comparable but behind. Double Ex Trick eco opening -- It is behind because the double extractor trick delays the queen further.
I seriously doubt you have played the build, because you would realize that you get the queen as fast as reasonably possible. It lines up perfectly to get the queen at 16 when the spawning pool pops. And once you have her, then you make up for the oh, maybe half a larva (seriously, you sit at 3 larva for maybe 7-10 seconds) with an queen worth of larva at an earlier time.
Something I have hated, and apparently Artosis hates too is that I can't count the number of games I have seen Zerg lose in the GSL to early pressure because they hatched before pool. Terran standard builds against zerg include early pressure. 4 marine pressure. 5 marine+one tank pressure. Double hellion pressure. Banshee pressure. And guess what? In most hatch first cases, the terran does damage with those if not outright wins.
And what does hatch before pool get you? -- Exactly that. A few more minerals, if you don't outright die.
Pro gamers are not immune to making mistakes. Especially rampantly popular mistakes. This is why. Hatch first builds always seem like they should be better, because either A) you get more minerals with workers split evenly over two bases earlier, which is wrong unless you have > 16 drones, and even then only really true at 24+ drones... Or B) You get more larva to make more workers, but this is wrong because you are delaying the queens to get a hatch up earlier, and a queen is at least equivalent to a hatchery when it comes to larva production, assuming you keep up.
In short, hatch first gets you damn near nothing except creep and 2 more supply, and in trade you mostly just die.
We spent 17 pages of thread and collectively over a hundred games against the very easy computer making sure this assumption from an economic standpoint was true.
If you want to argue effectively, provide evidence. This is done in the form of data. Provide replays. Do the work to prove us wrong. Because we have done the work that proves us right.
Like the guy who mentioned an 18 gas in both builds puts you behind to a 14 pool 15 hatch. That is legitimate. I think there is a correct answer to that, maybe gas way before hatch at 15, or gas after the hatch starts at 19, because a gas at 18 conflicts directly with the mineral gathering for the second hatch.
I don't mind this. But please, please, please stop making unfounded arguments because you happened to be born with an opinion.
And for
he did not suggest doing this "Double Ex Trick eco opening"? it is a thread about a BO posted in the op which i'm answering to.... not another opening that may be more economical. and i do not have to provide DATA i have to provide an argument or prove an argument wrong. i just did this. my arguments are: - this build wastes larvae (and mining time early on which is valuable against any early pressure) - you are behind if pressured early (which the op says is a plus of this build, but you won't be able to 18 hatch if pressured and will have less drones as any regular build) - no pro uses it (yes this IS an argument)
your call?
picking one point at a time sucks btw... especially if it is the weakest in a chain of arguments and this is exactly what the op is doing. dodging the obvious flaws in his build.
edit: the thread title and op say it is the BEST build for zerg on ANY map for ANY matchup if you forgot. maybe just standard american overhyping but it is clearly NOT. one build can never be like this.
On December 03 2010 03:39 fleeze wrote: it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
Wtf are you even talking about? Have you tried it, or watched the replays? You waste exactly 7 seconds of larvae spawn time, not 30.
On December 03 2010 04:42 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone who is making comments about the economics of this build, PLEASE, go click on the link I provided in the OP where we provide in detail the economics of this and many other builds at many times. That is also the place to discuss the notion of maximizing economy.
Looks like you'll need to ask people from the original thread to come up with gas BOs.
On December 03 2010 03:39 fleeze wrote: it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
Wtf are you even talking about? Have you tried it, or watched the replays? You waste exactly 7 seconds of larvae spawn time, not 30.
this was about hatch timing... 16 hatch vs 18 hatch.
On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early
Gonna cut you off right there.
It cuts exactly half of a drone early, and slightly delays a few. Both of those things are easily made up for by the earlier queen. It also gets drones 10 and 11 faster than more standard openings, which helps make up for the early delays.
It *is* economically what it's cracked up to be, I just don't think you understand what it's "cracked up to be".
It's an opening that gives you a ton of flexibility, and that *can* compete economically with 14/15/16 hatch first if you choose to.
On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early, you're shorter on minerals with which to spend those larvae. The 6 minute test the OP refered to shows that it's possible to get a lot of drones with this build order because you have a lot of larvae, but the total minerals mined is behind the standard builds. In a real game, you have expenses not accounted for in that 6 minute test (zerglings, crawlers, extractor, zergling speed). Since you're short on early drones and can't drone freely to catch up, you don't have the economy to support production out of your 2 hatcheries + queens.
It's a reasonable opening in ZvZ because it's a decent economy build that counters both hatch first and 7 pool. It's slightly behind 14-pool and roughly even with gas before pool.
So tell me, how short are you on drones? And at what points in time? Do you know? Have you even tested it or compared it to any other build? Have you even looked at the graph I posted in the OP link, and seen that 11Pool leads every other build tested in total drones at the earliest point tested?
And do you realize this build leads every other pool-first build in minerals mined? Have you tried going hatch-first recently against terran, zerg, or protoss?
Everyone who is making comments about the economics of this build, PLEASE, go click on the link I provided in the OP where we provide in detail the economics of this and many other builds at many times. That is also the place to discuss the notion of maximizing economy.
Yes, I've used 11 pool a fair bit, and yes, I've considered your thread on econ openings and your graphs. The problem is that your test conditions don't reflect reality. In reality, you need to use a drone to scout, you need to make a pair of early zerglings to clear ground for your hatch and for scouting and/or defense, you need to make a spine crawler and an extractor, you need to research zergling speed or get a roach warren, you need to make more zerglings/roaches in the 20-30 food range, and you really should spend some queen energy on creep tumors.
I don't think 11 pool -> 18 hatch is a bad build. Its strength is that it allows for better early pressure than a 14 pool, but I believe it is economically behind a 14 pool. I'm willing to be persuaded if you can show me a graph of mining rates up to 35 food with more realistic constraints (send a scouting drone, build a pair of lings at completion of pool, build an extractor after your hatch, commit 3 drones to gas and research speed, build a spine crawler and 8 more zerglings for a total of 10).
On December 03 2010 03:39 fleeze wrote: it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
Wtf are you even talking about? Have you tried it, or watched the replays? You waste exactly 7 seconds of larvae spawn time, not 30.
this was about hatch timing... 16 hatch vs 18 hatch.
Ahshit, my bad.
Gogogogo reading comprehension.
The earlier queen *more* than makes up for any 30 second delay on the hatch though.
On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early
Gonna cut you off right there.
It cuts exactly half of a drone early, and slightly delays a few. Both of those things are easily made up for by the earlier queen. It also gets drones 10 and 11 faster than more standard openings, which helps make up for the early delays.
It *is* economically what it's cracked up to be, I just don't think you understand what it's "cracked up to be".
It's an opening that gives you a ton of flexibility, and that *can* compete economically with 14/15/16 hatch first if you choose to.
NO. the whole point is you CAN'T IF your opponent puts pressure on you. against 2 rax you will be behind! way behind because 1. you won't hold your 18 hatch and 2. you can't produce the necessary drones... so it doesn't depend on if "you choose to" but if your opponent ALLOWS IT (and doesn't scout on pro level). i'm saying this since my first post btw... reading comprehension...
edit:
The earlier queen *more* than makes up for any 30 second delay on the hatch though.
sorry this is also only true if you are not under pressure. putting your hatch down 30 (37 with larvae waste included) seconds later is a huge difference when facing a 2 rax or any other cheese or even standard helion openings (no crawler at ramp).
he did not suggest doing this "Double Ex Trick eco opening"? it is a thread about a BO posted in the op which i'm answering to.... not another opening that may be more economical. and i do not have to provide DATA i have to provide an argument or prove an argument wrong. i just did this. my arguments are: - this build wastes larvae (and mining time early on which is valuable against any early pressure) - you are behind if pressured early (which the op says is a plus of this build, but you won't be able to 18 hatch if pressured and will have less drones as any regular build) - no pro uses it (yes this IS an argument)
your call?
picking one point at a time sucks btw... especially if it is the weakest in a chain of arguments and this is exactly what the op is doing. dodging the obvious flaws in his build.
Okay. If you have a queen at 3:20, and one less larva, or a queen at 3:40 and that one larva, are you ahead or behind right now? In 20 seconds? In 40 seconds? Is 20 seconds before 40 seconds? Why, then you are ahead!
You are behind if pressured early. Please provide evidence as to how you can't kill any early pressure with a freaking overpool.
No pro uses it. You know what, you are right. No pro uses this build, because no pro built this build. Pros get paid to play the game and get good at the game, not to pour over numbers and do perfect tests at very slow speed in game, because if they do that, they will not be as good at Starcraft, and they will lose where it matters in a micro battle, or not know how to play the late game correctly, which is far more important, because build orders can be copied, but late game intuition cannot. Which should you practice as a pro gamer? Which one can nobody ever take away from you as a pro gamer? The answer is intuition. The Tasteless build (any of them) has never gotten Tasteless into the GSL.
On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early, you're shorter on minerals with which to spend those larvae. The 6 minute test the OP refered to shows that it's possible to get a lot of drones with this build order because you have a lot of larvae, but the total minerals mined is behind the standard builds. In a real game, you have expenses not accounted for in that 6 minute test (zerglings, crawlers, extractor, zergling speed). Since you're short on early drones and can't drone freely to catch up, you don't have the economy to support production out of your 2 hatcheries + queens.
It's a reasonable opening in ZvZ because it's a decent economy build that counters both hatch first and 7 pool. It's slightly behind 14-pool and roughly even with gas before pool.
while what you say makes sense theoretically, it is not true in game. i drone to 16 and then make a queen. i leave those 16 drones on minerals. at 18/18 i wait until i have 300 minerals for a hatch THEN i take gas with the 18/18 drone i make to replace the one that made the hatchery. with 16 drones mining you have enough minerals to make all your larva drones when the first spawn pops. this act alone (5-7 drones building right when the spawn pops puts u equal or ahead in worker count again.)
im not saying this is the most economical build, it clearly is not. i view this build as doing some funky stuff in the beginning to put u ahead in the early-mid. if i have more drones mining for less total time then i will be behind in mineral count for a short time before i gain an advantage. and indeed this is exactly what the economy graph after a game shows. i looked very closely at this graph, along with monitoring worker counts in replays. you do have enough resources to drone VERY hard after your expo is up and a queen is barfing larva there. personally it feels faster to me getting those drones out, as opposed to other builds. while it may be slightly later in game time, like i said, i will be behind for a short time before my greater number of workers starts giving me an advantage.
if someone applies early pressure it will not be much before i am at 18 supply with 16 drones mining. that is enough to make lings to defend. i have also found that spines are not essential for early rushes. mid game ill throw some down, but i can make enough zerglings to defend against marines+scvs, with my queens tanking.
this build caught my interest the first time it was posted in the other thread and ive been testing it for the last week or so. i have gone from 1500 to 1950, something like 20-6 in my last handful of games. sure the players i am playing arent the best. but the vast majority of players fall into that category.
On December 03 2010 03:39 fleeze wrote: it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
Wtf are you even talking about? Have you tried it, or watched the replays? You waste exactly 7 seconds of larvae spawn time, not 30.
this was about hatch timing... 16 hatch vs 18 hatch.
Ahshit, my bad.
Gogogogo reading comprehension.
The earlier queen *more* than makes up for any 30 second delay on the hatch though.
I just ran timings, though, and it's not a 30 second delay on the hatch, it's 20, just because of the way things work out. And the queen comes 20 seconds faster. 20 seconds on a queen is better than 20 seconds on a hatch.
While I'm not agreeing with people shooting down this opening before trying it, I gotta say that there's a bit of hyperbole when people almost claim that it will revolutionize standards.
You won't see a HUGE difference between this and a 14pool/15hatch: 1) You get your pool (and queens) about 20sec sooner than 14pool/15hatch. 2) You get your hatch about 30sec later than 14pool/15hatch. 3) You'll likely get your gas about 20sec later than 14pool/15hatch as well.
It's not the grace saving build that will trump terran cheese into the ground... but it's not craptastic either. It's one of the numerous BOs that can get you from point A to point B with some pros and cons. Ability to get lings 20sec sooner can be a game changing factor... just like delaying metabolic boost by 20sec can be the reason that reaper kills 2 drones, or delaying that hatch by 30sec can make it slightly easier for your opponent to pressure it.
I just wish people would relativize(sp?) facts instead of throwing opinions right and left.
On December 02 2010 15:12 Conrose wrote: I think this build is quite vulnerable to hidden tech, particularly in the case of DTs, Phoenix openings, Banshees and Vikings. ZvZ, you'll really want to catch when they put down that Baneling Nest and hotkey your Drones. I also see early Muta harass being potentially dangerous with this BO. However, vs the current FotM builds, it is flexible enough to hold up.
Isn't every build vulnerable to hidden tech? I mean, if you haven't scouted their tech, how are you going to properly prepare for it?
When your opponent scouts an 11-pool, I think they'll be reluctant to tech straight to air and focus more on defensive measures. When they're fearful of a rush, they will pour funds into their army, delaying their tech and allowing this build to 'catch up,' although it seems like you're already ahead since you're fast teching to Spawning Pool and giving you the option of attacking or macro'ing.
And also, when you scout your opponent and see them fast teching with no (or few) units, transitioning into early aggression is a lot easier when you're Spawning Pool is already completed.
When your opponent shows early aggression, it's a lot easier to defend with your Spawning Pool completed. Spine Crawlers already take eons to build - it'd take a bit longer if you're waiting for the Spawning Pool to finish.
What I mean by vulnerable to hidden tech is that it takes significantly longer to set up the proper response to a hidden play after it has been revealed one way or another since the BO is late on gas, therefor late on various hard counters to more gimmicky plays. Lets take a BO with usuall gas times, someone tries a DT Play on you, you already have your lair almost by default, so you are only an Overseer Morph away from countering the DT's so hard his head spins. Vs a DT Play and you don't have your lair up yet because you late gassed, or worse yet, Late Gas into Speedlings, you'll be in for a world of hurt, they may even decide to snipe your constructing Lair and Spawning Pool to force you into GG.
Phoenix Openings will be particularly troublesome considering how much damage they can do in how little time it takes to do it with only a handful of Queens available to defend against them and in a very bad scenario, still a lair away from any massable response like Hydras. Cloaked plays can also play on the same slow tech vulnerabilities. 11 Pool in and of itself is cause for concern, but a Gasless 11 Overpool is very easy to defend against as Protoss or Terran if you do indeed confirm it is gasless. And with only Drones to defend against the scout if you really do drone hard with this build usually means the scouting harvester will be able to stick around for quite a while to see you not gassing quite yet. At that point, the P can choose to wall off and rush to DT or Phoenix.
I agree, Conrose, that it seems like this build is made for late gas, but really, we did not even consider putting gas into the build. What I (not sure about JD or the others) wanted to prove is that it is a superior opening to any hatch first build, which to me just smells like suicide. Hatch first builds don't have gas either until very late. Ultimately, you can press gas into the build at any point, but then it is endless argument about "how much gas do you want? When? Zergling speed or banelings?"
Better to just leave that to the reader to figure out.
This post does not constitute a statement resembling: "But you said it was superior. It must be superior in every way, at every point in time." Well duh, no build is going to ever accomplish that. A 6 pool is probably superior in the first 3 minutes of the game to any build by any race.
On December 03 2010 02:09 BodyMassageMachine wrote:
On December 02 2010 15:12 Conrose wrote: I think this build is quite vulnerable to hidden tech, particularly in the case of DTs, Phoenix openings, Banshees and Vikings. ZvZ, you'll really want to catch when they put down that Baneling Nest and hotkey your Drones. I also see early Muta harass being potentially dangerous with this BO. However, vs the current FotM builds, it is flexible enough to hold up.
Isn't every build vulnerable to hidden tech? I mean, if you haven't scouted their tech, how are you going to properly prepare for it?
When your opponent scouts an 11-pool, I think they'll be reluctant to tech straight to air and focus more on defensive measures. When they're fearful of a rush, they will pour funds into their army, delaying their tech and allowing this build to 'catch up,' although it seems like you're already ahead since you're fast teching to Spawning Pool and giving you the option of attacking or macro'ing.
And also, when you scout your opponent and see them fast teching with no (or few) units, transitioning into early aggression is a lot easier when you're Spawning Pool is already completed.
When your opponent shows early aggression, it's a lot easier to defend with your Spawning Pool completed. Spine Crawlers already take eons to build - it'd take a bit longer if you're waiting for the Spawning Pool to finish.
What I mean by vulnerable to hidden tech is that it takes significantly longer to set up the proper response to a hidden play after it has been revealed one way or another since the BO is late on gas, therefor late on various hard counters to more gimmicky plays. Lets take a BO with usuall gas times, someone tries a DT Play on you, you already have your lair almost by default, so you are only an Overseer Morph away from countering the DT's so hard his head spins. Vs a DT Play and you don't have your lair up yet because you late gassed, or worse yet, Late Gas into Speedlings, you'll be in for a world of hurt, they may even decide to snipe your constructing Lair and Spawning Pool to force you into GG.
Phoenix Openings will be particularly troublesome considering how much damage they can do in how little time it takes to do it with only a handful of Queens available to defend against them and in a very bad scenario, still a lair away from any massable response like Hydras. Cloaked plays can also play on the same slow tech vulnerabilities. 11 Pool in and of itself is cause for concern, but a Gasless 11 Overpool is very easy to defend against as Protoss or Terran if you do indeed confirm it is gasless. And with only Drones to defend against the scout if you really do drone hard with this build usually means the scouting harvester will be able to stick around for quite a while to see you not gassing quite yet. At that point, the P can choose to wall off and rush to DT or Phoenix.
with proper scouting (ol sac at ~26-30 depending on what your scouting drone saw) nothing is a problem with this build. you can adapt to anything. i had one game where a terran was massing thors. i saw 2 factories, with 2 tech labs before he had any thors out. i switched out of ling/baneling and went roach/baneling/infestor and owned.
starports will be building when u send that overlord in. this is enough time to put down an evo chamber, and build an extra queen/or 2, + spores at your bases if your lair is late (which it sometimes is). spores pretty much deny all phoenix harass solely by themselves unless he wants to trade his expensive gas units for drones/queens. i lost to a toss that did go dt. but that wasn't because he caught me with no detection. i just played like shit, suiciding my army +overseers into his cannons a few times.
one final point. i made an 11 pool. i can spend 1 larva on lings. go take map control and deny scouting. problem solved. if he is playing in the dark against my 11 pool he has no idea if i am massing lings to overrun, or playing eco. if he guesses wrong he loses. not to mention when i scout what he is doing i can instantly change my strategy to punish his choice.
11 pool is much faster then most zergs are used to. when i get around to scouting im always surprised to see that my setup is well equipped to deal with whatever he is doing.
And with only Drones to defend against the scout if you really do drone hard with this build usually means the scouting harvester will be able to stick around for quite a while to see you not gassing quite yet. At that point, the P can choose to wall off and rush to DT or Phoenix.
Don't forget the queen comes out earlier than hatch>pool, and the queen can pick off a scouting worker pretty easily. It also pressures the opponent because it opens up a number of options that the zerg can use - instead of seeing the hatch first and being safe for the next 3-4 minutes.
A lot of the negative comments on this thread seem to be coming from random theorycrafters who don't want to have to think what to do or change their current openings... which seems very close minded and more than a little silly.
he did not suggest doing this "Double Ex Trick eco opening"? it is a thread about a BO posted in the op which i'm answering to.... not another opening that may be more economical. and i do not have to provide DATA i have to provide an argument or prove an argument wrong. i just did this. my arguments are: - this build wastes larvae (and mining time early on which is valuable against any early pressure) - you are behind if pressured early (which the op says is a plus of this build, but you won't be able to 18 hatch if pressured and will have less drones as any regular build) - no pro uses it (yes this IS an argument)
your call?
picking one point at a time sucks btw... especially if it is the weakest in a chain of arguments and this is exactly what the op is doing. dodging the obvious flaws in his build.
Okay. If you have a queen at 3:20, and one less larva, or a queen at 3:40 and that one larva, are you ahead or behind right now? In 20 seconds? In 40 seconds? Is 20 seconds before 40 seconds? Why, then you are ahead!
You are behind if pressured early. Please provide evidence as to how you can't kill any early pressure with a freaking overpool.
OMG. you fail so hard at reading.... I ALREADY SAID IT'S EASIER TO HOLD. the point is you will be behind ECONOMICALLY!!!! i NEVER said you can't hold early pressure, stop making wrong assumptions. total fail in answering (and understanding...) my questions.
ok your queen will be earlier but you have to CATCH UP because you are behind because you LOST mining time already (delaying drones...) AND you have to wait 45 seconds for your extra larvae to spawn (with even one less larvae aka drone).... this is a lot of minerals for this early in the game. go ahead and calculate it if you mind, as i won't bother with an exact number (since it doesn't matter for my point). and now just imagine you had to use all your spawned larvae for zerglings because you are under pressure from a 2 rax opening (blind counter to this build btw). you understand now why you are behind?
No pro uses it. You know what, you are right. No pro uses this build, because no pro built this build. Pros get paid to play the game and get good at the game, not to pour over numbers and do perfect tests at very slow speed in game, because if they do that, they will not be as good at Starcraft, and they will lose where it matters in a micro battle, or not know how to play the late game correctly, which is far more important, because build orders can be copied, but late game intuition cannot. Which should you practice as a pro gamer? Which one can nobody ever take away from you as a pro gamer? The answer is intuition. The Tasteless build (any of them) has never gotten Tasteless into the GSL.
i already said (again....) that pros communicate with each other and you can believe that they will have tried every possible pool timing (especially the openings) at least ONE of them would use it IF it was superior to EVERY OTHER ZERG OPENING ON ANY MAP IN ANY MATCHUP!!! there are many pros actively reading this forum. don't you think at least they would have tried this? my arguments also provide many points why pros don't use this strat. you just ignore them or fail to understand.
I just ran timings, though, and it's not a 30 second delay on the hatch, it's 20, just because of the way things work out. And the queen comes 20 seconds faster. 20 seconds on a queen is better than 20 seconds on a hatch.
my bad sorry. i used the 15 seconds larvae spawn time it's actually a bit less ingame since the times ingame are for normal speed settings.
Comparing 11 pool to 14 pool (with extractor trick to make the comparison simpler since it's basically neutral):
builds are exactly the same up to overlord at 11 supply;
14 pool builds 3 drones while 11 pool waits for 200 minerals for pool and wastes ~1/2 a larva;
14 pool starts pool ~20 seconds later than 11 pool but has additional half larva and greater total minerals mined;
14 pool starts hatch and gas ~30 seconds earlier while 11 pool gets queen ~20 seconds earlier;
larvae injection pops 20 seconds earlier for 11 pool, giving 11 pool the larvae needed to catch up in production.
Until the additional drones from the larvae injections are mining, 11 pool is behind in total resources mined. If you spend all of your resources up to that point, 14 pool will get you more stuff. If a shortage of larvae is limiting your production, 14 pool is not as good. I believe that is what was happening in the tests in the other thread--people were making only drones and not spending on defense, so their production was limited by larvae and not by minerals. The 14 pool builds built up an excess of minerals. In a real game, this doesn't happen, meaning 14 pool is not limited by larvae.
On December 03 2010 05:25 Lomilar wrote: I agree, Conrose, that it seems like this build is made for late gas, but really, we did not even consider putting gas into the build. What I (not sure about JD or the others) wanted to prove is that it is a superior opening to any hatch first build
While I think this build is a strong opening, that last statement depends on how you define "superior".
Hatch first builds are still ahead economically, with 14h/15p appearing to be the leader overall, and 14h/14p making a very small economic sacrifice to get a slight larva advantage, so I don't know if you believe you've successfully proved that 11OP is a superior opening, but if so, I would have to disagree. It's clearly not superior for every situation.
What I think has been proved, though, is that an 11 pool opening can turn into an economic build that isn't *that* far behind the "best" economic builds. Not nearly as far behind as most people would imagine, for sure.
I think its a good point that this build works well with overlord sac (initial OL methinks and this is map dependent of course) rather than a drone (especially against P), by the time you lose the ovie the minerals wont be a problem. You should still be able to scout the FE and transition to take it out fast enough, and clearly you will have enough time/queens to prevent air cuteness.
On December 03 2010 05:41 kcdc wrote: Comparing 11 pool to 14 pool (with extractor trick to make the comparison simpler since it's basically neutral):
builds are exactly the same up to overlord at 11 supply;
14 pool builds 3 drones while 11 pool waits for 200 minerals for pool and wastes ~1/2 a larva;
14 pool starts pool ~20 seconds later than 11 pool but has additional half larva and greater total minerals mined;
14 pool starts hatch and gas ~30 seconds earlier while 11 pool gets queen ~20 seconds earlier;
larvae injection pops 20 seconds earlier for 11 pool, giving 11 pool the larvae needed to catch up in production.
Until the additional drones from the larvae injections are mining, 11 pool is behind in total resources mined. If you spend all of your resources up to that point, 14 pool will get you more stuff. If a shortage of larvae is limiting your production, 14 pool is not as good. I believe that is what was happening in the tests in the other thread--people were making only drones and not spending on defense, so their production was limited by larvae and not by minerals. The 14 pool builds built up an excess of minerals. In a real game, this doesn't happen, meaning 14 pool is not limited by larvae.
exactly. but you have to add the lost mining time of 11 pool (12/13 supply drones are out faster for 14 pool too).
On December 03 2010 05:41 fleeze wrote: the point is you will be behind ECONOMICALLY!!!!
ok your queen will be earlier but you have to CATCH UP because you are behind because you LOST mining time already (delaying drones...) AND you have to wait 45 seconds for your extra larvae to spawn (with even one less larvae aka drone).... this is a lot of minerals for this early in the game. go ahead and calculate it if you mind, as i won't bother with an exact number (since it doesn't matter for my point).
The earlier queen doesn't just allow you to catch up. It allows you to PULL AHEAD. And the slightly delayed drones are at least partially made up for by the fact that drones 10 and 11 are faster. It's not a "lot of minerals", and you're not even behind by a full drone. It's a very small amount of minerals, which is the price you pay for the extra flexibility and early safety.
and now just imagine you had to use all your spawned larvae for zerglings because you are under pressure from a 2 rax opening (blind counter to this build btw). you understand now why you are behind?
Compared to what?
You *have the opportunity* to spend those earlier larvae on zerglings earlier if you need them. That's a bonus, not a penalty. If you had to use all those spawned larvae for zerglings, then you held off the pressure *better and easier* than a 14pool would have, and are *ahead*.
And seriously wtf at saying 2rax blind counters an 11pool? I'm calling bullshit.
On December 03 2010 05:41 kcdc wrote: 14 pool builds 3 drones while 11 pool waits for 200 minerals for pool and wastes ~1/2 a larva;
This is true. 11pool wastes 1/2 a larva.
14 pool starts pool ~20 seconds later than 11 pool but has additional half larva and greater total minerals mined;
Also true, although the "greater total minerals mined" is going to be a pretty small amount.
14 pool starts hatch and gas ~30 seconds earlier while 11 pool gets queen ~20 seconds earlier;
False. 14pool starts hatch 20 seconds earlier, not 30.
larvae injection pops 20 seconds earlier for 11 pool, giving 11 pool the larvae needed to catch up in production.
Modification: larvae injection pops 20 seconds earlier, giving 11 pool the larvae needed to PULL AHEAD in production. Between that point and the time the hatch finishes, 11pool is ahead by about a larva and a half, and after the 16hatch finishes, 11pool is still ahead by about 1/2 larva.
Until the additional drones from the larvae injections are mining, 11 pool is behind in total resources mined. If you spend all of your resources up to that point, 14 pool will get you more stuff. If a shortage of larvae is limiting your production, 14 pool is not as good. I believe that is what was happening in the tests in the other thread--people were making only drones and not spending on defense, so their production was limited by larvae and not by minerals. The 14 pool builds built up an excess of minerals. In a real game, this doesn't happen, meaning 14 pool is not limited by larvae.
This is where I agree with you. The tests were pure 6 minute drone races, and 11pool beat everything except for 14hatch. But you can't just claim this makes the 11pool worthless, without showing examples of how and where it fails. The original post is a foundation, not a build. You're claiming that it would be worse at actual builds, but haven't even attempted to provide any proof. Sorry, but the onus is on you. The OP showed that 11pool can be superior economically to any other pool-first build.
So pick a build, something that you would typically do with a 14pool/16hatch, and I'll be more than happy to run detailed in-game tests, because although I'm intrigued about the possibilities here, I also would like to see how it holds up in real in-game situations where you're doing more than just building workers.
On December 03 2010 05:53 fleeze wrote: exactly. but you have to add the lost mining time of 11 pool (12/13 supply drones are out faster for 14 pool too).
Drones 10 and 11 are out faster for 11 pool, and drone 11 in particular is significantly faster.
On December 03 2010 05:41 fleeze wrote: the point is you will be behind ECONOMICALLY!!!!
ok your queen will be earlier but you have to CATCH UP because you are behind because you LOST mining time already (delaying drones...) AND you have to wait 45 seconds for your extra larvae to spawn (with even one less larvae aka drone).... this is a lot of minerals for this early in the game. go ahead and calculate it if you mind, as i won't bother with an exact number (since it doesn't matter for my point).
The earlier queen doesn't just allow you to catch up. It allows you to PULL AHEAD. And the slightly delayed drones are at least partially made up for by the fact that drones 10 and 11 are faster. It's not a "lot of minerals", and you're not even behind by a full drone. It's a very small amount of minerals, which is the price you pay for the extra flexibility and early safety.
l and now just imagine you had to use all your spawned larvae for zerglings because you are under pressure from a 2 rax opening (blind counter to this buid btw). you understand now why you are behind?
Compared to what?
You *have the opportunity* to spend those earlier larvae on zerglings earlier if you need them. That's a bonus, not a penalty. If you had to use all those spawned larvae for zerglings, then you held off the pressure *better and easier* than a 14pool would have, and are *ahead*.
compared to a standard opening what else do you think? i agree in that it's easier to hold it off i said this multiple times now.
some additional thoughts though: - if you don't build the drones you ARE behind (as you need them to catch up... already forgot about this?) - you lack the minerals the standard build will have mined (see kcdc's post) - you won't have an expansion (as a 14/15 hatch would) - you won't have gas for speed or banes (as a 14 pool would)
conclusion: your behind compared to a standard build.
And seriously wtf at saying 2rax blind counters an 11pool? I'm calling bullshit.
2 rax pressure openings won't let you produce the drones needed to catch up. you also can't attack (wall-in) and you have no gas to threaten it because of the wall-in even if you beat the initial push (fe baneling bust). also you won't get your 18 hatch through. this is theorycraft on my side btw but seems pretty plausible (and is not my main argument). btw we are talking about an economically superior 11 pool here, seems like most of you forget about this.
1. what "optimal" means and what is "clearly" superior/inferior/stupid 2. whether or not the OP advertises his build well or hypes too much 3. who can read properly and who can't 4. how often you've reiterated your point and people still don't get it 5. ...
The only constructive thing to be done with this thread is to figure out in what circumstances this build is good or can be adapted to get an advantageous position compared to standard builds and in what circumstances this build is not good.
It appears to me that the haters make one valid point: you get a lot of economy from the queens, but this happens a bit late and you have to play catch up, so early on you don't have a lot of spare minerals to buy stuff and getting early lings will hurt your economy more than if you did a conventional opening. Thus it seems to be an interesting shuffling of timing windows: if you're attacked very early, the 11 pool is better than a standard opening. If you're attacked early but late enough that it is easily defended by the standard opening, the 11 pool is economically worse. If you're not attacked at all, it doesn't matter much. Does this sum up the situation?
Second, so far it seems that with this build it is more difficult to get gas early - is this true or is there a way to get gas early on without damaging economy too much.
Pretty please stop taking things so personally and/or being rude for no reason, and focus on the topic at hand or ignore the thread.
Bah, I've been trying this in ZvT and ZvZ. Still haven't really gotten the hang of it. I personally don't think this is great for my ZvZ still, since I need the initial creep spread to defend my Natural. I can see it being used really efficiently against T and P, but I haven't gotten the proper responses and scouting timings down yet.
On December 03 2010 06:11 fleeze wrote: some additional thoughts though: - if you don't build the drones you ARE behind (as you need them to catch up... already forgot about this?) - you lack the minerals the standard build will have mined (see kcdc's post) - you won't have an expansion (as a 14/15 hatch would) - you won't have gas for speed or banes (as a 14 pool would)
conclusion: your behind compared to a standard build.
*If you don't build the drones* that is true.
But if you didn't need the zerglings to hold off the pressure, then you can still build the drones.
And if you *did* need the zerglings, then guess what? Your standard build just died, because it didn't have them, or took a shit-ton of damage, and you're behind just as much, if not more.
And seriously wtf at saying 2rax blind counters an 11pool? I'm calling bullshit.
2 rax pressure openings won't let you produce the drones needed to catch up. you also can't attack (wall-in) and you have no gas to threaten it because of the wall-in even if you beat the initial push (fe baneling bust). also you won't get your 18 hatch through. this is theorycraft on my side btw but seems pretty plausible (and is not my main argument).
Again, you have the *opportunity* to build zerglings faster if you need them. You also already have the earlier queen for extra defense. Everything else you said applies equally to a 14pool. If 2rax pressure is strong enough that you're not going to get the 18 hatch through, then chances are very good that you wouldn't get a 16hatch through either. Neither of them is going to have creep in time to place crawlers if we're talking about pressure so early that you're building lings from your first queen larvae spawn. But seriously...if you *need* the zerglings that early, you can have them, which is something that simply can't be said about the 14pool.
btw we are talking about an economically superior 11 pool here, seems like most of you forget about this.
The whole point of this opening is that it gives you a ton of flexibility. It can lead to either strong 1base play if that's what you want or need, or it can lead to a very strong economic build that is comparable to 14hatch builds. That is the point that *you* seem to be forgetting.
I don't know what's gotten into all of you, but a lot of you need to calm down. This is a discussion thread where you're supposed to debate the merits of the OP, and while being passionate is great, you should do so with a bit more self control than has been exhibited over the past 5 pages or so.
The build order isn't perfect, and a lot of you have poked holes in it which is perfectly fine and what you should be doing. Just don't get carried away with the ad hominem stuff. I've reread the OP three times and he's not being as hyperbolic as many of you think. As he says, the strength of the build is flexibility so you'll have the larva/pool in order to react. I haven't played around with it in YABOT yet, so I won't make any judgments about it.
I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
That doesn't mean it's the perfect build. If you disagree, discuss it and do so with some civility.
On December 03 2010 06:11 shoop wrote: so early on you don't have a lot of spare minerals to buy stuff and getting early lings will hurt your economy more than if you did a conventional opening.
See, this is the part I really don't get. You do actually have plenty of minerals to do other stuff that you might need to do. In fact, 14pool/16hatch has to let some larvae sit unused just in order to be able to build the queen when the pool finishes, because it's short on minerals at that point in time. That never happens in the 11 pool, and the only time you have larvae sitting around that you can't use is at 11 supply while you're waiting for minerals for the pool. Which we've already established puts you about 1/2 larvae behind.
Second, so far it seems that with this build it is more difficult to get gas early - is this true or is there a way to get gas early on without damaging economy too much.
If you want to build your second hatchery before gas, 14pool/16hatch has the same problem, although the second hatch and therefore gas do come about 20 seconds faster. If you want to get gas sooner, you have to delay the hatch, but that's true of either build. It's just something you have to adjust for, and you might want to do something like double-gas after the 18hatch, which is something that would be a lot harder to pull off with a 16hatch.
These sorts of questions are the reason I'd really like to see people actually trying stuff out rather than theory-crafting and saying "this is going to be worse because of X, Y, and Z". IMO, the OP did his part, in showing that a build that would normally be considered as making pretty big economy sacrifices can actually hold its own against the best economic builds out there.
And yeah, the thread title is a little over the top, since the posted "build" is just a drone race. But I honestly think there's a lot of potential here, if people would just stop flaming and theorycrafting and actually try some shit out.
So again I say to the naysayers: give me a real build with a "standard" opening, and I'll run side-by-side comparisons of the standard version vs the best 11pool version I can come up with. The OP did quite a lot of testing and posted replays, while you're simply theorycrafting. I'm even offering to do your testing for you, you lazy bastards.
just played another game. my army size is overwhelming in the early mid game. so intimidating in fact he takes an island instead of his nat. i think it has to do with building so many drones at once. your economy just skyrockets in 2 larva cycles, at which point u can pump units. i made lings so i put down a 3rd hatch in my main.
the first 16 drones i make never come off mining. you DO have mineral excess. you have plenty of money to saturate your main and nat in 2 larva cycles.
when he mules our economy graphs are EQUAL. during all other points i have several hundred more minerals per minute mining. final resource tallies are me winning by more then 10k.
i think this terran played standard. he tried hellions banshees and thors. maybe not the most skilled player but none of us are. this is a normal game.
there is about a 1-2 minute section early game (<20 workers) where he has a slight advantage. and i then overtake him for the rest of the game.
On December 03 2010 02:09 BodyMassageMachine wrote:
On December 02 2010 15:12 Conrose wrote: I think this build is quite vulnerable to hidden tech, particularly in the case of DTs, Phoenix openings, Banshees and Vikings. ZvZ, you'll really want to catch when they put down that Baneling Nest and hotkey your Drones. I also see early Muta harass being potentially dangerous with this BO. However, vs the current FotM builds, it is flexible enough to hold up.
Isn't every build vulnerable to hidden tech? I mean, if you haven't scouted their tech, how are you going to properly prepare for it?
When your opponent scouts an 11-pool, I think they'll be reluctant to tech straight to air and focus more on defensive measures. When they're fearful of a rush, they will pour funds into their army, delaying their tech and allowing this build to 'catch up,' although it seems like you're already ahead since you're fast teching to Spawning Pool and giving you the option of attacking or macro'ing.
And also, when you scout your opponent and see them fast teching with no (or few) units, transitioning into early aggression is a lot easier when you're Spawning Pool is already completed.
When your opponent shows early aggression, it's a lot easier to defend with your Spawning Pool completed. Spine Crawlers already take eons to build - it'd take a bit longer if you're waiting for the Spawning Pool to finish.
What I mean by vulnerable to hidden tech is that it takes significantly longer to set up the proper response to a hidden play after it has been revealed one way or another since the BO is late on gas, therefor late on various hard counters to more gimmicky plays. Lets take a BO with usuall gas times, someone tries a DT Play on you, you already have your lair almost by default, so you are only an Overseer Morph away from countering the DT's so hard his head spins. Vs a DT Play and you don't have your lair up yet because you late gassed, or worse yet, Late Gas into Speedlings, you'll be in for a world of hurt, they may even decide to snipe your constructing Lair and Spawning Pool to force you into GG.
Phoenix Openings will be particularly troublesome considering how much damage they can do in how little time it takes to do it with only a handful of Queens available to defend against them and in a very bad scenario, still a lair away from any massable response like Hydras. Cloaked plays can also play on the same slow tech vulnerabilities. 11 Pool in and of itself is cause for concern, but a Gasless 11 Overpool is very easy to defend against as Protoss or Terran if you do indeed confirm it is gasless. And with only Drones to defend against the scout if you really do drone hard with this build usually means the scouting harvester will be able to stick around for quite a while to see you not gassing quite yet. At that point, the P can choose to wall off and rush to DT or Phoenix.
with proper scouting (ol sac at ~26-30 depending on what your scouting drone saw) nothing is a problem with this build. you can adapt to anything. i had one game where a terran was massing thors. i saw 2 factories, with 2 tech labs before he had any thors out. i switched out of ling/baneling and went roach/baneling/infestor and owned.
Not all players are above building a pylon in less scouted areas for their Stargate or their Dark Shrine (Some maps provide very good places to build their tech away from prying eyes, and DT Tech is particularly troublesome in that the Twilight Council Pre-req provides Charge and Blink upgrades that can just as easily explain the lack of a properly sized army or visible tech as a Dark Shrine can when you suicide your overlord. I almost always proxy my dark shrine since if it gets scouted, it's useless anyways, and a proxy pylon is always useful to some extent)
i lost to a toss that did go dt. but that wasn't because he caught me with no detection. i just played like shit, suiciding my army +overseers into his cannons a few times.
I know what you mean, you set your Overseers on follow and it just turns out that the unit you set it on follow happened too make its way to the front of the line somehow and manages to be ignored by enemy attacks for some reason resulting in not only your Overseers being shot, but also not automatically running away from the attacker because "HEY, I am still following something." Now I mostly set them up in a separate control group to avoid that sort of problem in the future.
Also, good micro (Or frantic waypoints) can keep a scout alive for a surprisingly long time vs a Queen + a handful of nospeed-lings if they know enough to keep far enough from the creep to keep the zerglings from taking advantage of creep speed. but close enough to get around the edges of the creep faster than the queen can.
That said, I do enjoy variants of the 11 Overpool opening, it seems the most proactive of all the builds.
This build is interesting, I will try to test it myself when I finish this post but I want to know how the following screws up the economy of it: 1: Getting gas around the same time you'd get it for a hatch first? 2: Making 2, 4, or 6 lings? 3: Drone scouting after you put down the pool?
It seems like you are sacrificing income until your first inject comes in so I can see it hurting the build - at the same time you might only need lings to defend against rushes, and you can use the inject to get lings out around the time a normal hatch first?
Alright so I tested it. 1: You can gas around the time your hatch goes down and it will delay the second queen but otherwise your economy has already recovered so its not a big deal. 2: Your inject will pop about 30 seconds or so after a typical 13 scout 15 hatch 14 pool opening's pool will finish, so if you do have to make any lings the inject will be able to add a massive reinforcement or a drone pump if you don't need them. 3: If you send a drone scout after your pool goes down, it will be just after a typical 13 drone scout. However, it will hurt you more and you might want to wait for the first drone that pops out after your pool goes down if you want to only suffer a similar economy deficit.
I think this might be the new go to build for a 2 player map. For a 4 player where you're less likely to be blocked, and may want to scout earlier, hatch or pool first might be more reasonable, but only because this build is hurt more for every drone they don't make more than a normal build because the loss of getting a faster pool is only made up when the inject pops but perhaps its not as bad as I think.
Cool build! Looks like a great way to FE against toss like overpool was. He can't cannon rush and he can't nex first. I think the drone scout is important so you know how many lings you need to punish greed/defend a rush//stop an expo block.
On December 02 2010 09:01 spongythingz wrote: Would there be a similar build which adds gas for the super crucial ling speed and a scout. Or since the pool was up so early, could you use the first pair of lings? I've been adding an extractor at 16 and it seems you can squeeze a hatch, speed and get 100 minerals before the larvae pops (provided you take drones off gas at 100).
Vs Terran, I usually go 11 OverPool/13 Queen and Drone until I can get gas between Larva... this usually isn't long after the queen starts for Speedlings/Banelings to beat back the early bioballs and thor plays. Not sure how to adapt it for vs Zerg quite yet but vs Protoss it transitions into Speedlings and Fast Roaches very well... squeezing out picket lings shouldn't be a problem.
To help put some of the criticisms to rest regarding this builds gas/speed timing, as well as it's viability in ZvZ, I have provided a 7th replay. Enjoy poking new holes into this one too...
On December 03 2010 06:11 fleeze wrote: some additional thoughts though: - if you don't build the drones you ARE behind (as you need them to catch up... already forgot about this?) - you lack the minerals the standard build will have mined (see kcdc's post) - you won't have an expansion (as a 14/15 hatch would) - you won't have gas for speed or banes (as a 14 pool would)
conclusion: your behind compared to a standard build.
*If you don't build the drones* that is true.
But if you didn't need the zerglings to hold off the pressure, then you can still build the drones.
And if you *did* need the zerglings, then guess what? Your standard build just died, because it didn't have them, or took a shit-ton of damage, and you're behind just as much, if not more.
i saw fruitdealer hold it with a standard build today and many others also did. your not as safe as an 11 pool but the larvae spawn of a 14 pool or the extra larvae of a 15 hatch arrive just in time to defend normally. no need to build the zerglings earlier (and if you didn't build them you just lost there with your 11 pool since you have to wait another 45 sec) also my whole point was that you don't build the drones.... not about if you did... show me how to hold a 2 rax without any zerglings...
And seriously wtf at saying 2rax blind counters an 11pool? I'm calling bullshit.
2 rax pressure openings won't let you produce the drones needed to catch up. you also can't attack (wall-in) and you have no gas to threaten it because of the wall-in even if you beat the initial push (fe baneling bust). also you won't get your 18 hatch through. this is theorycraft on my side btw but seems pretty plausible (and is not my main argument).
Again, you have the *opportunity* to build zerglings faster if you need them. You also already have the earlier queen for extra defense. Everything else you said applies equally to a 14pool. If 2rax pressure is strong enough that you're not going to get the 18 hatch through, then chances are very good that you wouldn't get a 16hatch through either. Neither of them is going to have creep in time to place crawlers if we're talking about pressure so early that you're building lings from your first queen larvae spawn. But seriously...if you *need* the zerglings that early, you can have them, which is something that simply can't be said about the 14pool.
a 14 pool will have the zerglings in time for nearly any early push. it is considered a very "safe" build. 14/15 hatch you need good prediction and larvae saving but you have the creep at your natural faster. that's why these 2 builds are standard. 14 pool for small maps/close position, 14/15 hatch for long distances.
btw we are talking about an economically superior 11 pool here, seems like most of you forget about this.
The whole point of this opening is that it gives you a ton of flexibility. It can lead to either strong 1base play if that's what you want or need, or it can lead to a very strong economic build that is comparable to 14hatch builds. That is the point that *you* seem to be forgetting.
no this is the point i am arguing. fast pool builds rely on early pressure to pay the early investment else they are behind and if it is put under pressure it's behind for sure (it did no damage and can't catch up). especially with the current meta game (fe 2 rax). you as well as the op ignore the fact that there is an opponent in the game that won't allow you to build drones if he scouted your build which is also pretty easy to see with a standard scout timing. who builds an 11 pool for pressure and doesn't safe larvae for those 3 zerglings?
On December 03 2010 05:25 Lomilar wrote: I agree, Conrose, that it seems like this build is made for late gas, but really, we did not even consider putting gas into the build. What I (not sure about JD or the others) wanted to prove is that it is a superior opening to any hatch first build
While I think this build is a strong opening, that last statement depends on how you define "superior".
Hatch first builds are still ahead economically, with 14h/15p appearing to be the leader overall, and 14h/14p making a very small economic sacrifice to get a slight larva advantage, so I don't know if you believe you've successfully proved that 11OP is a superior opening, but if so, I would have to disagree. It's clearly not superior for every situation.
What I think has been proved, though, is that an 11 pool opening can turn into an economic build that isn't *that* far behind the "best" economic builds. Not nearly as far behind as most people would imagine, for sure.
I define superior as better in most situations.
There is a bit of an economic loss, but it is _so_ much safer against every form of cheese or early pressure. Its earlier lings, an earlier queen, a later expo that can't be probe blocked because you can have 2 lings out at that point in time... I dunno, it just seems so much better.
On December 03 2010 06:40 Slayer91 wrote: This build is interesting, I will try to test it myself when I finish this post but I want to know how the following screws up the economy of it: 1: Getting gas around the same time you'd get it for a hatch first? 2: Making 2, 4, or 6 lings? 3: Drone scouting after you put down the pool?
It seems like you are sacrificing income until your first inject comes in so I can see it hurting the build - at the same time you might only need lings to defend against rushes, and you can use the inject to get lings out around the time a normal hatch first?
If you're worried about screwing up the economy, don't do any of those things.
Or, better yet, do them at the same time you would have done them on a 14pool. If you typically build a set of lings as soon as a 14pool finishes, that doesn't mean you have to build those same 2 lings as soon as the 11pool finishes. Wait a supply or two, and you'll have them at the same time as you're used to having them, without actually doing anything to your economy that you weren't already doing with the 14pool.
Seriously, I don't understand why this is confusing. If you're used to sending a drone scout as soon as your pool goes down with a 14pool, that scout has a certain amount of impact on your economy. If you 11pool, and still send a scout when the pool goes down, that scout will have a bigger impact on your economy. But if you simply wait 20 seconds and then send a drone, the it has the same impact, and sees things at exactly the same time.
And yes, you are sacrificing a *very small amount* of income until your first inject comes in, but after that inject comes in, you're *ahead*. You're not just catching up, you're *pulling ahead*. You pay a price earlier to pay dividends later. And to be perfectly honest, the price isn't nearly as large as a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.
On December 03 2010 06:04 Skrag wrote: This is where I agree with you. The tests were pure 6 minute drone races, and 11pool beat everything except for 14hatch. But you can't just claim this makes the 11pool worthless, without showing examples of how and where it fails. The original post is a foundation, not a build. You're claiming that it would be worse at actual builds, but haven't even attempted to provide any proof. Sorry, but the onus is on you. The OP showed that 11pool can be superior economically to any other pool-first build.
So pick a build, something that you would typically do with a 14pool/16hatch, and I'll be more than happy to run detailed in-game tests, because although I'm intrigued about the possibilities here, I also would like to see how it holds up in real in-game situations where you're doing more than just building workers.
That would help a ton with this duscussion. Just do something reasonably safe with a 14 pool 16 hatch with an extractor trick before OL to keep the comparison as close as possible. Send a drone to scout after your OL finishes. Get a pair of zerglings and an extractor after your queen, research zergling speed at 100 gas, and make some zerglings and a spine crawler when your hatch finishes. Pull drones off gas after 100 for speed. Then note what your defense is at each point in time and your total resources mined. Try to match that level of defense off of an 11 pool and compare the total resources mined. Certain things might not match up--the 11 pool won't have the creep as early for a spine crawler at the nat, so you might want to start it in your main and move it down or compensate with more zerglings. Try to get zergling speed at about the same time in both cases as being 30 seconds late on both speed and your spine crawler is a huge deal in the game.
On December 03 2010 06:40 Slayer91 wrote: This build is interesting, I will try to test it myself when I finish this post but I want to know how the following screws up the economy of it: 1: Getting gas around the same time you'd get it for a hatch first? 2: Making 2, 4, or 6 lings? 3: Drone scouting after you put down the pool?
It seems like you are sacrificing income until your first inject comes in so I can see it hurting the build - at the same time you might only need lings to defend against rushes, and you can use the inject to get lings out around the time a normal hatch first?
If you're worried about screwing up the economy, don't do any of those things.
Or, better yet, do them at the same time you would have done them on a 14pool. If you typically build a set of lings as soon as a 14pool finishes, that doesn't mean you have to build those same 2 lings as soon as the 11pool finishes. Wait a supply or two, and you'll have them at the same time as you're used to having them, without actually doing anything to your economy that you weren't already doing with the 14pool.
Seriously, I don't understand why this is confusing. If you're used to sending a drone scout as soon as your pool goes down with a 14pool, that scout has a certain amount of impact on your economy. If you 11pool, and still send a scout when the pool goes down, that scout will have a bigger impact on your economy. But if you simply wait 20 seconds and then send a drone, the it has the same impact, and sees things at exactly the same time.
And yes, you are sacrificing a *very small amount* of income until your first inject comes in, but after that inject comes in, you're *ahead*. You're not just catching up, you're *pulling ahead*. You pay a price earlier to pay dividends later. And to be perfectly honest, the price isn't nearly as large as a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.
I updated the post. But no, I wouldn't scout as soon as a 14 pool goes down, a normal scout timing is 9 ol and then when your 2 larva pop and a third is coming you send one of the drones to scout. It turns out this is just after you put down your pool, and have 3 larva which you want to convert ASAP. so your scout will have to be a little later. I understand you don't need to make the lings immediately, but making lings will have a slightly bigger impact as you're still recovering. I don't think its that bad though, because really the main loss is the drone building the pool is gone earlier and a little bit of lost mining time from delaying the 3 drones.
If you're worried about screwing up the economy, don't do any of those things.
What, so I don't scout, don't take gas, and don't make any lings? Lol? The whole point was how does this build work as a reactionary. If it works fine if they go 1 rax tech but if they go 2 rax pressure having to make an early ling speed or more lings early, even if its only as early as a hatch first, can upset the way the build works and it might end up being behind a 14 hatch. (i.e, vs 6 pool//proxy gate build its better, vs econ builds its better, but it might be weak vs middle of the road pressure builds like 2 rax) From testing, it looks like its not a big deal, I don't understand why you're so hostile defending this build. We just need to figure it out its not a goddamn contest.
On December 03 2010 06:48 fleeze wrote: i saw fruitdealer hold it with a standard build today and many others also did. your not as safe as an 11 pool but the larvae spawn of a 14 pool or the extra larvae of a 15 hatch arrive just in time to defend normally.
Then you don't need the zerglings.
SO DON'T BUILD THEM.
Why are you making this so much more difficult than it needs to be?
no this is the point i am arguing. fast pool builds rely on early pressure to pay the early investment else they are behind and if it is put under pressure it's behind for sure (it did no damage and can't catch up).
See, this is one of the myths that the OP is trying to dispel IMO. You *pull ahead* (not catch up, PULL AHEAD) very quickly with this build when compared to a 14pool.
You don't actually have to do damage with early pressure in order to "catch up" to a 14pool. You're already ahead. Only the true economic builds, 14-16 hatch first, did better in economy than the 11pool.
If you get pressured early, and make too many lings too early, yes, you will be behind. Regardless of what your actual opening is.
If you need the lings to defend, you make them, regardless of whether you started with an 11 pool or a 14 pool. If you don't need them, and you make them, you sacrifice some economy. That's nothing special to an 11 pool though.
Seriously what are you trying to say here, that 14pool is better because it PREVENTS you from making too many lings too soon, because you *cant*?
you as well as the op ignore the fact that there is an opponent in the game that won't allow you to build drones if he scouted your build which is also pretty easy to see with a standard scout timing.
Ok, so your opponent scouts an 11 pool, and he instantly decides that he's going to try to put pressure on, knowing perfectly well that you'll be capable of building adequate defenses to his pressure because you put down an early pool, and also believing (incorrectly) that you'll have to try to do some damage to justify the early pool.
Do you realize how ridiculous this actually sounds? If anything, seeing the 11pool is going to make him play more defensively.
Alright, I can see where your frustration is coming from, people don't seem to get that the fast pool is good because the fast inject allows more drones and thus a better econ. You don't have to make any lings at all, and in fact, they have to do a lot of damage to make it worth not just spamming drones.
I'm interested to see if this will replace all other pool first builds. Hatch first still useful for the fast creep and overall bigger macro potential.
Also notice that you gain more drones period from the faster inject, (unless the waste of 1/2 a drone and slightly slower hatch evens it) so even having less minerals it will catch up. The case it won't catch up is that there is some form of pressure so you can't power drones and you can't spend all your larvae, and the extra mineral guy can still afford to power more drones, but it seems like a theoretical situation that won't happen too often.
EDIT: This build should be great for Zvz. In cases neither of you are expanding, the mineral loss will probably not come into play while the larvae advantage will.
On December 03 2010 07:04 Slayer91 wrote: What, so I don't scout, don't take gas, and don't make any lings? Lol?
No, what I'm saying is don't do them any *sooner* than you would with a 14pool. A drone taken off minerals at a particular time has the same impact regardless of whether you happened to put your pool down at 11 or 14.
The whole point was how does this build work as a reactionary. If it works fine if they go 1 rax tech but if they go 2 rax pressure having to make an early ling speed or more lings early, even if its only as early as a hatch first, can upset the way the build works and it might end up being behind a 14 hatch.
Here we go again. And this is one of the reasons I'm being so hostile, because none of you seem to be actually reading anything I'm posting. If 2 rax pressure forces you to make early ling speed or more lings, then you need those things regardless of whether you 11pooled or 14pooled. If you build them too early on an 11 pool start *because you could* then yes, you will be behind the 14 pool. SO DON'T DO THAT IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING BEHIND ECONOMICALLY. Build them when you normally would have, and the impact on the economy is exactly the same. The 2rax pressure can't force you to turn the larvae that would normally have been drones 16 and 17 into lings instead of drones, if the 14pool build didn't need them to be lings. It can't force you to make lings any earlier than a 14pool would have. The fact that you 11pooled doesn't magically make the pressure come any sooner.
But if you want the option of being able to build lings earlier in order to have an easier time holding off the pressure, then you have the option of doing so. If you choose to do so, you will be economically behind a more standard start. However: OPTION, not requirement.
And btw, this opening is actually behind a 14hatch economically. Compared to later pool-first builds, though, it is slightly behind early, but pulls ahead pretty quickly, and eventually compares reasonably favorably to a hatch-first opening economically, if you choose to take that route. Which, again, is an OPTION, not a requirement.
On December 03 2010 07:10 Slayer91 wrote: Alright, I can see where your frustration is coming from, people don't seem to get that the fast pool is good because the fast inject allows more drones and thus a better econ. You don't have to make any lings at all, and in fact, they have to do a lot of damage to make it worth not just spamming drones.
Yes, exactly. Thank you. I apologize for my hostility, but this is exactly the point I've been trying to get across.
On December 03 2010 07:10 Slayer91 wrote: Hatch first still useful for the fast creep and overall bigger macro potential.
I also agree with this wholeheartedly. In fact, if you're Fruitdealer, and are perfectly confident of your ability to both scout and defend against cheese, as well as hold off early pressure without taking too much damage with a hatch-first build, that's exactly what you should do. And frankly, I still don't see any reason to not hatch-first on maps that support it very nicely, like shakuras, jungle basin, and metalopolois. As for which hatch-first build to use, 14hatch/15pool seems to be the best of the bunch, with 14hatch/14pool sacrificing a small amount of economy for better larvae production.
The rest of us, who are a little less godlike, might be interested to know that there's a very early pool opening that can actually compete against those hatch-first builds.
It's also worth noting that there have been some pretty high-level players saying lately that hatch-first is simply extremely risky in a lot of situations. In GSL2, Artosis even went as far as saying that you simply can't hatch-first at high levels anymore, although I can't remember if he was specifically referring to the ZvP matchup, where there's a very easy protoss response to hatch-first builds that will flat out win you the game most of the time.
On December 03 2010 06:53 Skrag wrote:And yes, you are sacrificing a *very small amount* of income until your first inject comes in, but after that inject comes in, you're *ahead*. You're not just catching up, you're *pulling ahead*. You pay a price earlier to pay dividends later. And to be perfectly honest, the price isn't nearly as large as a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.
Plus the fact that you actually have an earlier queen to help defend or the ability to pump out zerglings earlier if necessary vs. potential cheese. That sacrifice is -definitely- worth it. Liking this build a lot, thanks!
last post here. i see it's pointless arguing in this thread. facts will get ignored and your arguments turned around so they fit the op. or just questions answered that weren't even asked even in the quoted posts while ignoring the whole point...
On December 03 2010 06:48 fleeze wrote: i saw fruitdealer hold it with a standard build today and many others also did. your not as safe as an 11 pool but the larvae spawn of a 14 pool or the extra larvae of a 15 hatch arrive just in time to defend normally.
Then you don't need the zerglings.
SO DON'T BUILD THEM.
Why are you making this so much more difficult than it needs to be?
i was talking about a 2 rax pressure terran against this build. you don't build zerglings against 2 rax pressure? well good luck then surviving with your "safe" 11 pool....
no this is the point i am arguing. fast pool builds rely on early pressure to pay the early investment else they are behind and if it is put under pressure it's behind for sure (it did no damage and can't catch up).
See, this is one of the myths that the OP is trying to dispel IMO. You *pull ahead* (not catch up, PULL AHEAD) very quickly with this build when compared to a 14pool.
You don't actually have to do damage with early pressure in order to "catch up" to a 14pool. You're already ahead. Only the true economic builds, 14-16 hatch first, did better in economy than the 11pool.
i was comparing it to both you know? usually i prefer hatch first builds. op says this build is better economically than a 14/15 hatch. i say it's bullshit because it wastes larvae and has high opportunity costs(less minerals overall) early on. and it's behind a 14 pool if put under pressure. these are my main points.
If you get pressured early, and make too many lings too early, yes, you will be behind. Regardless of what your actual opening is.
right. but a 14 pool has more drones and minerals initially (before the first spawn arrives) so it is better to 14 pool against pressure due to the better economy. again you totally miss my point.
If you need the lings to defend, you make them, regardless of whether you started with an 11 pool or a 14 pool. If you don't need them, and you make them, you sacrifice some economy. That's nothing special to an 11 pool though.
Seriously what are you trying to say here, that 14pool is better because it PREVENTS you from making too many lings too soon, because you *cant*?
i'm saying a 14 pool has a better eco if put under pressure compared to an 11 pool that needs to catch up in drones and mining time it sacrificed.
you as well as the op ignore the fact that there is an opponent in the game that won't allow you to build drones if he scouted your build which is also pretty easy to see with a standard scout timing.
Ok, so your opponent scouts an 11 pool, and he instantly decides that he's going to try to put pressure on, knowing perfectly well that you'll be capable of building adequate defenses to his pressure because you put down an early pool, and also believing (incorrectly) that you'll have to try to do some damage to justify the early pool.
Do you realize how ridiculous this actually sounds? If anything, seeing the 11pool is going to make him play more defensively.
good players can read a game pretty well. even i would be pretty suspicious if i see an 11 pool and there are no larvae safed up to build zerglings at all. also the fast second overlord in an overpool build will make many players suspicious that this is in fact a zerg trying to build drones. if by "defensively" you mean he will build more units that could be true. and this is the point i already stated in my first post in this thread. he will build units and you want to build drones (remember: drones you need to catch up to match the eco of a standard build). he attacks (or threatens an attack) and you have to build zerglings putting you behind. he may even get your 18 hatch (which is ~27 seconds later than the 16 hatch, you forgot the wasted larvae time in your previous post). overall your behind if put under pressure compared to a 14 pool or 15 hatch although you have an easier time to defend it. you even cannot counter attack because you only got lings and no gas. i'm out.
While you all were busy having an internet argument and theorycrafting, I was actually testing the criticisms in game... Take a look at the OP please... Pretty please...
Fleeze, maybe you shouldn't look, since it basically counters everything you stated in your previous post...
On December 03 2010 06:53 Skrag wrote:And yes, you are sacrificing a *very small amount* of income until your first inject comes in, but after that inject comes in, you're *ahead*. You're not just catching up, you're *pulling ahead*. You pay a price earlier to pay dividends later. And to be perfectly honest, the price isn't nearly as large as a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.
Plus the fact that you actually have an earlier queen to help defend or the ability to pump out zerglings earlier if necessary vs. potential cheese. That sacrifice is -definitely- worth it. Liking this build a lot, thanks!
But if your Queen is out to defend sooner, it might get killed in an attack that you would have otherwise been unable to repel, and then you're behind because a build without the Queen yet wouldn't have lost it because it would have... well...
On December 03 2010 07:33 fleeze wrote: i was talking about a 2 rax pressure terran against this build. you don't build zerglings against 2 rax pressure? well good luck then surviving with your "safe" 11 pool....
And what I'm saying, and that you don't seem to be getting is that 2rax pressure can't force you to build zerglings faster than you would have build them with a 14pool. It can't force you to build lings instead of the drones that you would need to pull ahead. (again, pull ahead, not catch up, a difference you've ignored probably half a dozen times now) You can still build the lings, at the same time that the 14pool would have built them, and hold off just as well, without being behind.
i was comparing it to both you know? usually i prefer hatch first builds. op says this build is better economically than a 14/15 hatch.
The op says no such thing, and in fact clearly states that hatch-first builds are superior economically. What the op and others are saying, is that the 11pool compares favorably enough to hatch-first build that the flexibility and early safety are always (or at least almost always) worth the sacrifice. I personally disagree with that. There are situations where hatch-first is going to be the best choice. But nobody's said at any point that 11pool is superior to hatch-first economically. There has been some misinterpretation and misreading, but the OP's graph clearly shows that 14h/15p is ahead of 11pool economically. The 11pool opening *is* superior economically to other pool-first builds though.
What I'm trying to say is; let's say at each point in time after you put down a pool you are behind in minerals compared to a 14 pool until 5 or 6 minutes in the game (gametime). In which case if you ever need to spend enough resources on *non drones, e.g gas, ling speed, lings, spine crawlers* you may reach a point where you start to fall behind compared to a 14 pool doing things at the same time.(yes, same time game time, not same time relative to your spawning pool) Because even if you make lings at the same time as a 14 pool, his economy is better built to support that. That's what I'm saying.
Thus, any kind of pressure that's not designed to hit before a hatch first lings are out, theoretically is this builds weakness.
Now I'm not sure about how much this mineral deficit is, and how long it takes to overcome, at least not yet. It's possible that the rewards far outweigh the risks, but before every adopts this as their be all end all build we have to be rigorous.
fast pool builds rely on early pressure to pay the early investment else they are behind and if it is put under pressure it's behind for sure (it did no damage and can't catch up).
This is the common rationalization for 14pool/16hatch or hatch first builds. The OP is trying to examine whether or not it's just an assumption ("more drones and later pool MUST be a better economy, right?") or actually has some merit. That's why he's been bringing numbers to the table.
I've been following this thread pretty closely because I think the Zerg community here at TL.net is pretty innovative. Every post of yours I've read so far is claiming that he's going to be behind if X happens or if Y doesn't happen... but with no numbers or replays to corroborate what you're saying.
Please, for the sake of argument, don't come back to this thread without at least trying the build (in good faith) and creating replays of the build performing sub-standardly (standard being hatch-first) against the early pressure you're claiming will dismantle it. So far, the OP has shown that this build is competitive with standard openings at least in terms the amount of minerals mined and larvae produced -- but has the added defense of a queen and the safety of ling production capability much earlier than economically focused builds.
especially with the current meta game (fe 2 rax). you as well as the op ignore the fact that there is an opponent in the game that won't allow you to build drones if he scouted your build which is also pretty easy to see with a standard scout timing.
Prove it, please.
who builds an 11 pool for pressure and doesn't safe larvae for those 3 zerglings?
This isn't a pure pressure build in the slightest. Just because the opening has the capability of changing to a high pressure build if zerglings are made doesn't mean he can't also build drones and play economically if his opponent is also opening economically/passively.
On December 03 2010 07:45 Skrag wrote: The op says no such thing, and in fact clearly states that hatch-first builds are superior economically.....
I really did not want to go into this post, but clearly THIS above needs to be re-enforced. It seems the biggest confusion here is that people think the OP states that this "build" is a better econ opening than a 14h/15p. He never says this.
I am playing with this build myself at the moment. I still prefer 14H/15P vs terran but it seems everyone and their mother is doing the foxer early push, so the 14 hatch is not the best idea, for me anyway.
Good post, lots of facts, great arguments (by most people) for and against the build. Needs more replays from different people.
I think in the current metagame with the foxer style 2rax builds being so common, that the 11 pool will be the better choice right now. In the long run, 14hatch/15 pool is better econ, so it will probably win out in the long run, especialy on some maps like Jungle/metal/scrap that just make hatch first such a good thing to do. So I would say "I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent." isnt a valid statement. But other then that he is correct, and this will probably become very standard on things like DQ/steps.
11 pool ofc. drone until ur expo is up, gas while it is building. spawn larva and make 1 round of drones.
if they do any kind of 3-4 gate push/expand build (scout to see) then put down roach warren and ling speed with first 100 gas. u dont need spines. just make lings and roaches. u also dont need a single more drone to win the game.
the first push he does MAY (probably wont be) close. u should have more then enough to crush it. if he doesnt expand after this push then drone and push ur eco advantage. if he does expand then pump more roach/ling.
the key is do not get supply blocked. if u do u will lose. if u dont u will find yourself at 100 pop earlier then u have ever gotten there.
he has 4 gates (or thereabouts). u have 2 hatches with queens. u can outproduce him by so much it will be laughable.
this guy, 1900 toss, ended the game by saying gg o_0. he msg me and said this build is sick and he was not expecting the swarm. i do this against toss and am probably 15-2 against them lately. 1 game i lost because i was supply blocked for too long, another he did a crazy dt/carrier strat.
Alright, I tested once 14 pool vs 11 pool. Used the following build orders: 9 ol scout: 1:40 14 pool 16 hatch 15 queen Gas: 3:17 18 OL 11 ol 11 pool scout 1:51 16 queen 18 hatch gas 3:25 17 ol 22 ol
Timings: 11 pool hatch done: 4:48 pool done: 2:48 14 pool hatch done: 4:34 pool done: 3:02
@4:02 11 pool = 70 mins, 23/26 14 pool = 100 mins 23/28 @5:00 11 pool = 144 min 116 gas 29/36 14 pool = 28/28 250/124 (got supply blocked LOL) @6:00 11 pool = 50 min 232 gas 47/52 14 pool ( 6:05) = 200 min 248 gas 44/44 ol coming Note: Supply block for the 14 pool at 5 minutes screws it up, as well as maynarding i'm not sure if i did it for both rigorously or not, and only 1 pass is only good enough for an approximation. Also 14 pool has 1 more inject coming at the end, so you'd end them to level off with the 150 (5 seconds later on the pass) or so mins being spent on drones.) But we do find that they're pretty much dead even, maybe 11 pool is a little bit ahead, but the scout was a little later and gas was a little later. Also more optimal build order since i didn't get supply blocked.
The thing is you almost never get to 16 hatch expo because of pylons/scvs/probes blocking. It's an ideal build so I think 11 pool is better. Pool being 25 seconds earlier, in drone mining time thats about 25-30 minerals so that equates to the figures at 4 minutes, so the difference seems to be actually quite small, assuming you scout a little later and gas a little later. Seems like a slight improvement over 14 pool but mostly anti rush//expo block. I like it.
On December 03 2010 08:24 Vaporized wrote: try this against toss:
11 pool ofc. drone until ur expo is up, gas while it is building. spawn larva and make 1 round of drones.
if they do any kind of 3-4 gate push/expand build (scout to see) then put down roach warren and ling speed with first 100 gas. u dont need spines. just make lings and roaches. u also dont need a single more drone to win the game.
the first push he does MAY (probably wont be) close. u should have more then enough to crush it. if he doesnt expand after this push then drone and push ur eco advantage. if he does expand then pump more roach/ling.
the key is do not get supply blocked. if u do u will lose. if u dont u will find yourself at 100 pop earlier then u have ever gotten there.
he has 4 gates (or thereabouts). u have 2 hatches with queens. u can outproduce him by so much it will be laughable.
this guy, 1900 toss, ended the game by saying gg o_0. he msg me and said this build is sick and he was not expecting the swarm. i do this against toss and am probably 15-2 against them lately. 1 game i lost because i was supply blocked for too long, another he did a crazy dt/carrier strat.
Not really a great example. He did a late 3 gate push off an expo and you only barely held it off, then stopped drones and overran him with roach/ling, because he had like 20 more workers, and no forge//sim city etc. A really fast 1 gas 4 warpgate arrives at about 6 minutes game time, with 4 stalkers 3 zealots 1 sentry or variants (my one with something like that), with 4 warpgates of production behind it. Normally you can't go past like 20 drones to hold that off.
On December 03 2010 07:48 Slayer91 wrote: What I'm trying to say is; let's say at each point in time after you put down a pool you are behind in minerals compared to a 14 pool until 5 or 6 minutes in the game (gametime). In which case if you ever need to spend enough resources on *non drones, e.g gas, ling speed, lings, spine crawlers* you may reach a point where you start to fall behind compared to a 14 pool doing things at the same time.(yes, same time game time, not same time relative to your spawning pool) Because even if you make lings at the same time as a 14 pool, his economy is better built to support that. That's what I'm saying.
Thus, any kind of pressure that's not designed to hit before a hatch first lings are out, theoretically is this builds weakness.
Now I'm not sure about how much this mineral deficit is, and how long it takes to overcome, at least not yet. It's possible that the rewards far outweigh the risks, but before every adopts this as their be all end all build we have to be rigorous.
Your entire argument and this entire discussion is meaningless because you are operating on a FALSE ASSUMPTION, that this build is behind in economy. Take a look at my last replay. 11pool vs 15 Hatch 15Pool... I am ahead in resources mined at every point from 1:30 to 4:30 when I began making lings. The data is all there, in this thread and the previous.
Obviously you aren't comparing to a build that doesn't include a hatch are you? Or do you think choosing 14 pool over 14 hatch will somehow change the drone count?
I can't even make sense of this thread anymore. What attack is going to interrupt an 11 pool? You say a 2rax? I posted a replay of me putting down a hatch AND beating a2rax AND winning on economy in the mid-game. You are still trying to claim that my economy will simply be crippled because I opened 11pool instead of 14? I just don't get it anymore...
On December 03 2010 08:30 Slayer91 wrote: Alright, I tested once 14 pool vs 11 pool. Used the following build orders: 9 ol scout: 1:40 14 pool 16 hatch 15 queen Gas: 3:17 18 OL 11 ol 11 pool scout 1:51 16 queen 18 hatch gas 3:25 17 ol 22 ol
Timings: 11 pool hatch done: 4:48 pool done: 2:48 14 pool hatch done: 4:34 pool done: 3:02
@4:02 11 pool = 70 mins, 23/26 14 pool = 100 mins 23/28 @5:00 11 pool = 144 min 116 gas 29/36 14 pool = 28/28 250/124 (got supply blocked LOL) @6:00 11 pool = 50 min 232 gas 47/52 14 pool ( 6:05) = 200 min 248 gas 44/44 ol coming Note: Supply block for the 14 pool at 5 minutes screws it up, as well as maynarding i'm not sure if i did it for both rigorously or not, and only 1 pass is only good enough for an approximation. Also 14 pool has 1 more inject coming at the end, so you'd end them to level off with the 150 (5 seconds later on the pass) or so mins being spent on drones.) But we do find that they're pretty much dead even, maybe 11 pool is a little bit ahead, but the scout was a little later and gas was a little later. Also more optimal build order since i didn't get supply blocked.
The thing is you almost never get to 16 hatch expo because of pylons/scvs/probes blocking. It's an ideal build so I think 11 pool is better. Pool being 25 seconds earlier, in drone mining time thats about 25-30 minerals so that equates to the figures at 4 minutes, so the difference seems to be actually quite small, assuming you scout a little later and gas a little later. Seems like a slight improvement over 14 pool but mostly anti rush//expo block. I like it.
Using current minerals is completely meaningless, because each build will make things at different times. Use current minerals mined (Minerals spent + current minerals) for a fair assessment of these builds. 11Pool is ahead in total minerals.
yeah but at all the points measured, there's the same number of buildings, queens, and hatches, the only variables are drones, which you can simply add one to the supply count, and subtract 50 minerals from the mineral count, and assume there's only 1 ovi in production. Not rocket science is it?
"completely meaningless"? lol. I was using an a4 sheet and a replay to look I didn't use the stats at the end because I was taking at several points not at one point. My numbers are valid, at the end add 3 drones and you have the same supply and mineral count. 11 pool might be slightly ahead, but if its within 50 minerals its nothing too important, the other benefits show its worth doing, considering the mineral loss even early one seems to be within 50 minerals.
When pros use a build and many of them get knocked out of the GSL because of blind hatch vs 2rax push, does this mean that all other builds shouldn't be used because of this? It's funny that July has made it far in the GSL since he goes pool/extractor gfsjgslgmgsngjlfdg ZOMG something new im so confused! its a pro playing a different build deep in GSL. If a pro does a BO it doesnt mean you should follow it every game to heart, it should say "hey this is a BO i should look into it if i dont like it i'll still know it." maybe you should look at the SAME thing with this build...
On December 03 2010 08:38 Slayer91 wrote: yeah but at all the points measured, there's the same number of buildings, queens, and hatches, the only variables are drones, which you can simply add one to the supply count, and subtract 50 minerals from the mineral count, and assume there's only 1 ovi in production. Not rocket science is it?
"completely meaningless"? lol. I was using an a4 sheet and a replay to look I didn't use the stats at the end because I was taking at several points not at one point. My numbers are valid, at the end add 3 drones and you have the same supply and mineral count. 11 pool might be slightly ahead, but if its within 50 minerals its nothing too important, the other benefits show its worth doing, considering the mineral loss even early one seems to be within 50 minerals.
I'm sorry, but this has to be the most complicated method of comparing two builds I have ever seen.
Let's all just leave this thread alone for the day. It's been a rocky start, and we could all use some rest. Let's go play a few games, chill out, and come back tomorrow with some useful replays.
On December 03 2010 08:49 Mephs wrote: This build is shit. 2100 diamond. 8 losses in a row with it. I'll stick to what works.
I don't ever do this build directly, as there is no gas in this build... I build a pair of zerglings with the extractor trick at 19/18 when pool finishes after making my queen, and either keep the extractor going for early speedlings, or get gas after hatch goes down.
On December 03 2010 08:38 Slayer91 wrote: yeah but at all the points measured, there's the same number of buildings, queens, and hatches, the only variables are drones, which you can simply add one to the supply count, and subtract 50 minerals from the mineral count, and assume there's only 1 ovi in production. Not rocket science is it?
"completely meaningless"? lol. I was using an a4 sheet and a replay to look I didn't use the stats at the end because I was taking at several points not at one point. My numbers are valid, at the end add 3 drones and you have the same supply and mineral count. 11 pool might be slightly ahead, but if its within 50 minerals its nothing too important, the other benefits show its worth doing, considering the mineral loss even early one seems to be within 50 minerals.
I'm sorry, but this has to be the most complicated method of comparing two builds I have ever seen.
Minerals spent + minerals.... problem solved.
It's not scientific, Its just the obvious way of doing it with a only pen and paper to take down the timings. It requires mental arithmetic that 6 years old can do, I'm sure TL can manage it.
In any case, this wasn't a rigorous comparison, just an approximation to find out roughly if there's a significant mineral deficit or a significant larvae gain over other pool firsts, which there isn't, indicting that this is simply a superior build, with flexible options like 11 overpool ling rush vs greedier builds.
On December 03 2010 07:48 Slayer91 wrote: What I'm trying to say is; let's say at each point in time after you put down a pool you are behind in minerals compared to a 14 pool until 5 or 6 minutes in the game (gametime). In which case if you ever need to spend enough resources on *non drones, e.g gas, ling speed, lings, spine crawlers* you may reach a point where you start to fall behind compared to a 14 pool doing things at the same time.(yes, same time game time, not same time relative to your spawning pool) Because even if you make lings at the same time as a 14 pool, his economy is better built to support that. That's what I'm saying.
Thus, any kind of pressure that's not designed to hit before a hatch first lings are out, theoretically is this builds weakness.
Now I'm not sure about how much this mineral deficit is, and how long it takes to overcome, at least not yet. It's possible that the rewards far outweigh the risks, but before every adopts this as their be all end all build we have to be rigorous.
Your entire argument and this entire discussion is meaningless because you are operating on a FALSE ASSUMPTION, that this build is behind in economy. Take a look at my last replay. 11pool vs 15 Hatch 15Pool... I am ahead in resources mined at every point from 1:30 to 4:30 when I began making lings. The data is all there, in this thread and the previous.
If one player drones straight to 15 and the other pauses at 11 drones long enough to amass 200 minerals and then morphs a drone into a pool, doesn't it seem strange that the latter player would have mined more minerals at this point in time? I can't watch the replay right now at work, but I'm guessing that the difference lies in suboptimal play or a very early scout from the hatch first player and a very late or no scout from the 11 pool player.
I think this is a good opening in ZvZ because it beats 6/7 pool and hatch first. I suspect that it puts you at a small disadvantage against 14 pool because 14 pool gets the 12th-17th drones earlier. I think it's less good in ZvT and ZvP because the earlier pool doesn't make T or P do anything they didn't already want to do anyway. On very small maps, it might force P to make a zealot before cybercore which is suboptimal for a lot of BO's, but actually allows good pressure on small maps.
You're just asking to be 2gated with such a late Hatch.
Earlier Hatches do not mean you're more vulerable to early pressure. The earlier you Hatch the easier it is to keep the expo alive.
It's easier to defend 2rax with Hatch first builds for example just because you're able to build a spinecrawler. 14 Pool 15 Hatch doesn't fare any better than 14 Hatch 13 Pool
The zvz replay the OP just added to the first post, against a 15hatch/14pool build, is very interesting. In this replay, the 11p is behind early, but takes a pretty early lead in drone count, economy, and tech. I think it's very interesting to look at some key points in the game.
One important note: The 11pool player fucked up pretty badly in this game, accidentally building 2 overlords instead of 1 before building the pool. That fact makes all of this even more interesting, IMO.
At 2:02, when the 15 hatch has just finished its 15th worker:
11pool: 10 drones, 1569 total spending + banked resources, extractor (3/30), pool (29/65), 2 drones in production (15/17 + 8/17)
15hatch: 15 drones, 1545 total spending + banked resources, nothing in production (but hatch will start soon)
Surprisingly, despite being at 10 drones for so long, and the extra OL, the 11pool is slightly *ahead* in total resources. This is for a couple reasons. The 15hatch player started 10OL, and sent out a very early scout on 10. The hatch-first player feels like they have to scout early because they auto-lose to a 6pool if they put down the hatch first, but the 11pool doesn't have to send out an early scout, because they're safe against anything.
At 2:43, when the 11pool catches up in drone count:
Ok, we're starting to fall behind prety significantly, to the tune of 150 minerals. However, the 11pool player has put down a pretty early extractor, and between that and the accidental 3rd overlord, that would be 2 drones that could have been mining. Later gas and not fucking up the OL would probably put the count much closer.
At 4:28, when the 11pool's first inject just finishes. This should be the point where it's the furthest behind.
The really interesting thing here is that the 15hatch player has seen the early pool from his opponent, feels threatened, and because of this, saved 3 larvae to build lings ASAP, even making sure they started before his queen. Because of that, at the point where the 11pool is supposed to be the furthest behind, the 11pool is actually ahead in drones, resources, *and* tech. All this despite what I would consider a MASSIVE fuckup early on.
Last point of interest, 5:25, just before the 11pool attacks with his first 6 lings:
At this point, the 11pool is firmly ahead in resources and tech, and is only behind on drones due to the decision to start mass-producing lings, producing 10 lings that could have been 5 drones. The game ends 2 minutes later with the 15hatch simply being overpowered.
On December 03 2010 07:48 Slayer91 wrote: What I'm trying to say is; let's say at each point in time after you put down a pool you are behind in minerals compared to a 14 pool until 5 or 6 minutes in the game (gametime). In which case if you ever need to spend enough resources on *non drones, e.g gas, ling speed, lings, spine crawlers* you may reach a point where you start to fall behind compared to a 14 pool doing things at the same time.(yes, same time game time, not same time relative to your spawning pool) Because even if you make lings at the same time as a 14 pool, his economy is better built to support that. That's what I'm saying.
Thus, any kind of pressure that's not designed to hit before a hatch first lings are out, theoretically is this builds weakness.
Now I'm not sure about how much this mineral deficit is, and how long it takes to overcome, at least not yet. It's possible that the rewards far outweigh the risks, but before every adopts this as their be all end all build we have to be rigorous.
Your entire argument and this entire discussion is meaningless because you are operating on a FALSE ASSUMPTION, that this build is behind in economy. Take a look at my last replay. 11pool vs 15 Hatch 15Pool... I am ahead in resources mined at every point from 1:30 to 4:30 when I began making lings. The data is all there, in this thread and the previous.
If one player drones straight to 15 and the other pauses at 11 drones long enough to amass 200 minerals and then morphs a drone into a pool, doesn't it seem strange that the latter player would have mined more minerals at this point in time? I can't watch the replay right now at work, but I'm guessing that the difference lies in suboptimal play or a very early scout from the hatch first player and a very late or no scout from the 11 pool player.
I think this is a good opening in ZvZ because it beats 6/7 pool and hatch first. I suspect that it puts you at a small disadvantage against 14 pool because 14 pool gets the 12th-17th drones earlier. I think it's less good in ZvT and ZvP because the earlier pool doesn't make T or P do anything they didn't already want to do anyway. On very small maps, it might force P to make a zealot before cybercore which is suboptimal for a lot of BO's, but actually allows good pressure on small maps.
sorry just had to quote this as this is exactly my thought process, but better articulated but you will also fail trying to use common sense on the op and his mindless followers. opportunity costs should be pretty obvious and shouldn't need an explanation to people that actually use their brains.
the last posts by various people referring to myself where hilarious btw. making up assumptions and statements i never made. just as expected.
On December 03 2010 09:14 kcdc wrote: If one player drones straight to 15 and the other pauses at 11 drones long enough to amass 200 minerals and then morphs a drone into a pool, doesn't it seem strange that the latter player would have mined more minerals at this point in time? I can't watch the replay right now at work, but I'm guessing that the difference lies in suboptimal play or a very early scout from the hatch first player and a very late or no scout from the 11 pool player.
There was a slightly sub-optimal play from the 15hatch player (10OL instead of 9OL, with no extractor trick), and there was also an early scout. But don't you *have* to early scout zvz if you're going hatch first, or risk auto-losing to 6-8pool?
On December 03 2010 09:22 fleeze wrote: the last posts by various people referring to myself where hilarious btw. making up assumptions and statements i never made. just as expected.
Oh, you mean like when you said the OP claimed this build was ahead of hatch-first builds economically?
On December 03 2010 07:48 Slayer91 wrote: What I'm trying to say is; let's say at each point in time after you put down a pool you are behind in minerals compared to a 14 pool until 5 or 6 minutes in the game (gametime). In which case if you ever need to spend enough resources on *non drones, e.g gas, ling speed, lings, spine crawlers* you may reach a point where you start to fall behind compared to a 14 pool doing things at the same time.(yes, same time game time, not same time relative to your spawning pool) Because even if you make lings at the same time as a 14 pool, his economy is better built to support that. That's what I'm saying.
Thus, any kind of pressure that's not designed to hit before a hatch first lings are out, theoretically is this builds weakness.
Now I'm not sure about how much this mineral deficit is, and how long it takes to overcome, at least not yet. It's possible that the rewards far outweigh the risks, but before every adopts this as their be all end all build we have to be rigorous.
Your entire argument and this entire discussion is meaningless because you are operating on a FALSE ASSUMPTION, that this build is behind in economy. Take a look at my last replay. 11pool vs 15 Hatch 15Pool... I am ahead in resources mined at every point from 1:30 to 4:30 when I began making lings. The data is all there, in this thread and the previous.
If one player drones straight to 15 and the other pauses at 11 drones long enough to amass 200 minerals and then morphs a drone into a pool, doesn't it seem strange that the latter player would have mined more minerals at this point in time? I can't watch the replay right now at work, but I'm guessing that the difference lies in suboptimal play or a very early scout from the hatch first player and a very late or no scout from the 11 pool player.
I think this is a good opening in ZvZ because it beats 6/7 pool and hatch first. I suspect that it puts you at a small disadvantage against 14 pool because 14 pool gets the 12th-17th drones earlier. I think it's less good in ZvT and ZvP because the earlier pool doesn't make T or P do anything they didn't already want to do anyway. On very small maps, it might force P to make a zealot before cybercore which is suboptimal for a lot of BO's, but actually allows good pressure on small maps.
The problem with 14/15 pools is the really late queen. 11 pool gets the queen much sooner, which means you can get a whole round of drones out earlier, which actually more then makes up for the initial lost mining time and few seconds of having 3 larvae. The best way to test this is to start a game on Normal speed to micro perfectly, then save the game at 9 supply. From here, load the saved game and split the build into the 11 overpool 18 hatch, and a 14 pool 16 hatch, and compare replays after. The only differences in the builds will be related to the builds themselves, not execution of them since they both started with the exact same split and timings up until 9 drones, and normal speed will ensure that you don't miss building anything optimally after that. Amazingly you will see that 11 pool mines more minerals, and stays ahead in supply due to having more larvae available thanks to the early queen.
Can someone such as Idra do this build and provide replays? I would like to see someone with flawless mechanics try this build and give their opinion. It is difficult to argue for either side when the build isn't performed optimally.
Also, the updated build with gas is terrible. Missed overlords, as well as Shakura's Plateau. The gas doesn't matter as much in Shakura's because the huge distances do not favour any early aggression.
Lings should hatch right about the same time you want to send your drone to expand, so send out lings with your expanding drone. get speed when you have 100 gas. It's a healthy middle between safe speedlings and eco early expanding. I really like the early lings because you can gain so much info with them, and I feel like I'm putting pressure on without crippling my economy.
On December 03 2010 09:37 Blisse wrote: Can someone such as Idra do this build and provide replays? I would like to see someone with flawless mechanics try this build and give their opinion. It is difficult to argue for either side when the build isn't performed optimally.
Also, the updated build with gas is terrible. Missed overlords, as well as Shakura's Plateau. The gas doesn't matter as much in Shakura's because the huge distances do not favour any early aggression.
Sure man, let me call up IdrA on the phone. I'm sure he'd be willing to accommodate us.
And wouldn't the fact that the build isn't being preformed optimally, and yet is still winning so convincingly, be more of a compliment rather than a detriment? Or do you want me to give you a build so you don't have to think or adjust for 6 minutes?
On December 03 2010 06:04 Skrag wrote: This is where I agree with you. The tests were pure 6 minute drone races, and 11pool beat everything except for 14hatch. But you can't just claim this makes the 11pool worthless, without showing examples of how and where it fails. The original post is a foundation, not a build. You're claiming that it would be worse at actual builds, but haven't even attempted to provide any proof. Sorry, but the onus is on you. The OP showed that 11pool can be superior economically to any other pool-first build.
So pick a build, something that you would typically do with a 14pool/16hatch, and I'll be more than happy to run detailed in-game tests, because although I'm intrigued about the possibilities here, I also would like to see how it holds up in real in-game situations where you're doing more than just building workers.
That would help a ton with this duscussion. Just do something reasonably safe with a 14 pool 16 hatch with an extractor trick before OL to keep the comparison as close as possible. Send a drone to scout after your OL finishes. Get a pair of zerglings and an extractor after your queen, research zergling speed at 100 gas, and make some zerglings and a spine crawler when your hatch finishes. Pull drones off gas after 100 for speed. Then note what your defense is at each point in time and your total resources mined. Try to match that level of defense off of an 11 pool and compare the total resources mined. Certain things might not match up--the 11 pool won't have the creep as early for a spine crawler at the nat, so you might want to start it in your main and move it down or compensate with more zerglings. Try to get zergling speed at about the same time in both cases as being 30 seconds late on both speed and your spine crawler is a huge deal in the game.
Any chance you have or can dig up a replay of something you'd like me to try to reproduce as closely as possible? Or want me to just wing it based on what you've said here?
On December 03 2010 06:04 Skrag wrote: This is where I agree with you. The tests were pure 6 minute drone races, and 11pool beat everything except for 14hatch. But you can't just claim this makes the 11pool worthless, without showing examples of how and where it fails. The original post is a foundation, not a build. You're claiming that it would be worse at actual builds, but haven't even attempted to provide any proof. Sorry, but the onus is on you. The OP showed that 11pool can be superior economically to any other pool-first build.
So pick a build, something that you would typically do with a 14pool/16hatch, and I'll be more than happy to run detailed in-game tests, because although I'm intrigued about the possibilities here, I also would like to see how it holds up in real in-game situations where you're doing more than just building workers.
That would help a ton with this duscussion. Just do something reasonably safe with a 14 pool 16 hatch with an extractor trick before OL to keep the comparison as close as possible. Send a drone to scout after your OL finishes. Get a pair of zerglings and an extractor after your queen, research zergling speed at 100 gas, and make some zerglings and a spine crawler when your hatch finishes. Pull drones off gas after 100 for speed. Then note what your defense is at each point in time and your total resources mined. Try to match that level of defense off of an 11 pool and compare the total resources mined. Certain things might not match up--the 11 pool won't have the creep as early for a spine crawler at the nat, so you might want to start it in your main and move it down or compensate with more zerglings. Try to get zergling speed at about the same time in both cases as being 30 seconds late on both speed and your spine crawler is a huge deal in the game.
Any chance you have or can dig up a replay of something you'd like me to try to reproduce as closely as possible? Or want me to just wing it based on what you've said here?
Dont do the extractor trick for the 14 pool, that is stupid and less efficient for a 14 pool. Extractor trick is only good for the 11 pool because we put the pool down so soon, and its better to have more drones mining earlier to get the pool up sooner. 9 overlord is most efficient for a 14 pool, so do that. We want to compare the 11 overpool build with the standard 14 pool build, not some less efficient version of the 14 pool.
the point of 14/15 hatch first is so you can get a spine up and hold back early pressure not for the minimal economy boost. 6 lings wont hold off 2 early zealots. And if you pump out more than that you're blowing the build anyway.
every replay it looks like you're playing low MMR scrubs to me. how you got to 2200 diamond is a mystery.
On December 03 2010 10:04 Mephs wrote: the point of 14/15 hatch first is so you can get a spine up and hold back early pressure not for the minimal economy boost. 6 lings wont hold off 2 early zealots. And if you pump out more than that you're blowing the build anyway.
every replay it looks like you're playing low MMR scrubs to me. how you got to 2200 diamond is a mystery.
Since when was 2200 diamond really that good? I can spot a billion mistakes made by the top ladder players when I watch their replays, many of them severe. Missed larva injects, supply blocking, unspent resources, idle workers, etc etc. If I see all these things at much higher levels then I expect to see it at lower ones too. Let me watch some of your replays and we can all wonder how the hell you got to 2100 too. Oh wait, maybe its because 2100 isn't that good?
it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny.
On December 03 2010 10:03 genopath wrote: I don't understand. Wasn't it proved beyond reasonable doubt (lol) that 9ol 10drone is far superior than extractor trick?
The answer, as always, is it depends. If you're planning on going for say an economic 10 pool (not recommended due to larva timings), you're best off getting an overlord at 10. Not 9. As you'll still be saving for the pool by the time it's placed - meaning you're not supply blocked at any point.
11 pool (extractor trick) is the same story - if you want an early pool (in this case for an early queen) you're best off extractor tricking and 11 overlording.
But yes, I'm not sure about this build. It's only economical if you drone up - where all the timings with the larva etc work out perfect - but if you get a single ling or gas you're then behind. I've given it a few goes and lost them all.. but my persevere for a little longer, but gas just doesn't seem to work with this build. Your best hope is that they get frightened into their base by the early pool.. but I haven't had such luck so far.
On December 03 2010 10:18 Mephs wrote: it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny.
He's just trying to show that 14 hatch isn't the only viable build you can do that has a decent economy. 14 hatch is still a great build, but 11 overpool has clearly been demonstrated to be not only the most economical of the safe builds, but one of the safest of the safe builds, as it pools earlier. I like to experiment around with lots of builds, but this is the build I have always gone back to over the past few months, as it is an all-around stable build.
On December 03 2010 10:18 Mephs wrote: it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny.
You're wrong. The build is in no way "the same" as 14 hatch 15 pool. It offers considerably more options for early aggression if desired; it is much easier to hold against bunker/cannon rush attempts, etc.
You don't like it? Fine, but don't assume that it doesn't work for anyone else. You had 8 straight losses at 2100, I have a higher win ratio than before at that level. If you have nothing useful or constructive to say, you don't need to reply. You were already warned in an earlier thread, please try to learn from that.
Also, you complain about the level of play at 2200 diamond, yet you think it's meaningful to dispel his arguments by stating that you lose with this BO at 2100 diamond... funny, eh?
On December 03 2010 10:03 genopath wrote: I don't understand. Wasn't it proved beyond reasonable doubt (lol) that 9ol 10drone is far superior than extractor trick?
The answer, as always, is it depends. If you're planning on going for say an economic 10 pool (not recommended due to larva timings), you're best off getting an overlord at 10. Not 9. As you'll still be saving for the pool by the time it's placed - meaning you're not supply blocked at any point.
11 pool (extractor trick) is the same story - if you want an early pool (in this case for an early queen) you're best off extractor tricking and 11 overlording.
But yes, I'm not sure about this build. It's only economical if you drone up - where all the timings with the larva etc work out perfect - but if you get a single ling or gas you're then behind. I've given it a few goes and lost them all.. but my persevere for a little longer, but gas just doesn't seem to work with this build. Your best hope is that they get frightened into their base by the early pool.. but I haven't had such luck so far.
I've been doing this build for months, and building lings or gas at these times absolutely does not put me "behind" because I have more larvae in the early game than any other build due to the very fast queen, which I can use for whatever is most prudent at the time, making this build very flexible. I can overrun zergs with more zerglings, or FE protoss, or defend 2 rax marine, or pump more drones than any other pool first build, all because the queen comes out so early. Here is my build:
11 overpool 16 extractor (right when pool finishes so you have supply for a pair of lings+queen) 15 Queen 17 lings 18 overlord 18 hatchery at nat ling speed @100 gas
more lings/drones as needed
Lings finish in time to escort your drone to the nat to build a hatch, which is awesome against e-bays and pylons, or worker blocks.
You can also cancel the extractor after making lings, and instead make the hatchery sooner for a more economical build, but I'm like JulyZerg, I usually like my ling speed.
On December 03 2010 09:37 Blisse wrote: Can someone such as Idra do this build and provide replays? I would like to see someone with flawless mechanics try this build and give their opinion. It is difficult to argue for either side when the build isn't performed optimally.
Also, the updated build with gas is terrible. Missed overlords, as well as Shakura's Plateau. The gas doesn't matter as much in Shakura's because the huge distances do not favour any early aggression.
Sure man, let me call up IdrA on the phone. I'm sure he'd be willing to accommodate us.
And wouldn't the fact that the build isn't being preformed optimally, and yet is still winning so convincingly, be more of a compliment rather than a detriment? Or do you want me to give you a build so you don't have to think or adjust for 6 minutes?
Are you trying to insult me? Your sarcasm is terrible. I liked your build before (see page 2 or 3), but your attitude has convinced me otherwise.
It doesn't help that you play poorly, and that your opponents play poorly in every replay. Under ideal conditions, and if you want actual evidence of the strength of your build, prove it by providing 'perfect' replays; replays in which both players play nearly flawlessly.
If it's to become a new standardized build, as you want it to be, it should be up to par in every department and not lacking in any place. It would be different if you wanted to make a map specific, or match up specific build. But not a standard build.
Stop saying it's winning convincingly. You have to prove that it's not lacking anywhere, which cannot be proven if both players are not playing near perfect.
Then you talk about adjusting. Adjusting what? Making a useless Overlord? How is playing on Shakura's Plateau, the anti-aggression map, adjusting? I wasn't even arguing about adjustments, and you bring it up, so I'll continue. Of course you adjust. You just have to adjust well. If your adjustment is five extra Overlords, I want to see a specific use of those extra Overlords. If those same five Overlords could have been made somewhat consecutively for the exact same result, it's not an adjustment, it's an error.
The 7RR build was match up specific and caused the action. There was little room for variation (note 5RR and 9RR variants), because it did not rely on any other factors. It completely stopped almost every form of early aggression, so no adjustments were needed. It forced the opponent to make the adjustments. And it was also tailored towards Protoss, a race that relied on the lone Zealot, Stalker/Sentry to survive until Warp Gates finished. Early Roaches abused that narrow advantage. It dropped off at higher levels since better players reacted much better.
By suggesting this as a standard build, it must be able to adjust to perfect play, while being proven to outperform already proven builds. When one not playing perfectly, the entire game is useless as evidence. Mind games are generally useless if the build falls apart immediately afterwards compared to other builds.
That was on his methods and reasoning. On the actual build...
The most annoying thing is the scout timing. Because this build is very closely knit, all the timings are almost perfectly simultaneous. But only with the highest number of drones. Pulling one drone off slowed the build down quite a bit. However, the scout timing has always been complete preference.
On December 03 2010 10:18 Mephs wrote: it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny.
You're wrong. The build is in no way "the same" as 14 hatch 15 pool. It offers considerably more options for early aggression if desired; it is much easier to hold against bunker/cannon rush attempts, etc.
You don't like it? Fine, but don't assume that it doesn't work for anyone else. You had 8 straight losses at 2100, I have a higher win ratio than before at that level. If you have nothing useful or constructive to say, you don't need to reply. You were already warned in an earlier thread, please try to learn from that.
Also, you complain about the level of play at 2200 diamond, yet you think it's meaningful to dispel his arguments by stating that you lose with this BO at 2100 diamond... funny, eh?
Guarantee you 2200 diamond isn't that much more amazing than 2100. I don't feel comfortable with the build, my standard 14 pool/15 hatch or just 15 hatch first openings seem to flow better, but thats my playstyle. If it works for you whatever.
Are you trying to insult me? Your sarcasm is terrible. I liked your build before (see page 2 or 3), but your attitude has convinced me otherwise.
You judge builds by the attitude of a guy propagating it on TL?
Seriously, this entire thread has become completely about ad hominem attacks on a poster advocating the 11-overpool into 18 expand; it has almost nothing to do with the actual build anymore.
It doesn't help that you play poorly, and that your opponents play poorly in every replay. Under ideal conditions, and if you want actual evidence of the strength of your build, prove it by providing 'perfect' replays; replays in which both players play nearly flawlessly.
Hint: Nobody who posted on this thread is an Idra-level Zerg. Asking for ideal conditions is ludicrous. You're disqualifying a very well-documented proposal simply because you want "ideal" conditions which anyone but progamers will never be able to provide.
If it's to become a new standardized build, as you want it to be, it should be up to par in every department and not lacking in any place. It would be different if you wanted to make a map specific, or match up specific build. But not a standard build.
No. There is NO build that is "not lacking in any place", otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to use any other build. Trivial example: Any standard build is lacking in early aggression compared to a 6/8-pool.
The OP has put a lot of effort into documenting how his build plays out, and you're again making completely impractical requirements.
Stop saying it's winning convincingly. You have to prove that it's not lacking anywhere, which cannot be proven if both players are not playing near perfect.
Nonsense. You know exactly that noone on this thread plays near perfect. If your only point is that a progamer has not used this build yet, there's no reason to beat around the bush.
By suggesting this as a standard build, it must be able to adjust to perfect play, while being proven to outperform already proven builds. When one not playing perfectly, the entire game is useless as evidence. Mind games are generally useless if the build falls apart immediately afterwards compared to others.
Nonsense again. It is pointless to say "it must be able to adjust to perfect play" without providing anyone here any opportunity to provide evidence for or against it -- since clearly nobody posting here plays "perfectly". And it'd be folly to claim the converse, that if it works for progamers it must be "proven" to adjust to everything.
Hatch-first isn't safe independently of the map, but it's still considered standard. You cannot prove that a perfect cannon rush can't beat a perfectly defended 15 hatch 14 pool, because nobody plays perfectly.
On December 03 2010 10:18 Mephs wrote: it isn't that great, really. I'm just saying he's defending the build as if its a breakthrough for zerg players when in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway. Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny.
You're wrong. The build is in no way "the same" as 14 hatch 15 pool. It offers considerably more options for early aggression if desired; it is much easier to hold against bunker/cannon rush attempts, etc.
You don't like it? Fine, but don't assume that it doesn't work for anyone else. You had 8 straight losses at 2100, I have a higher win ratio than before at that level. If you have nothing useful or constructive to say, you don't need to reply. You were already warned in an earlier thread, please try to learn from that.
Also, you complain about the level of play at 2200 diamond, yet you think it's meaningful to dispel his arguments by stating that you lose with this BO at 2100 diamond... funny, eh?
Guarantee you 2200 diamond isn't that much more amazing than 2100. I don't feel comfortable with the build, my standard 14 pool/15 hatch or just 15 hatch first openings seem to flow better, but thats my playstyle. If it works for you whatever.
If it doesn't work for you, that's fine. But don't go around making sweeping generalizations about the build just because you don't like it. I don't make sweeping generalizations ("in fact its just another way to do the same shit we do anyway", "Zerg is so one-dimensional its not even funny") in favor of it either just because I do like it.
That's what we have replays and evidence-based discussions for, heck, even theory-crafting is better than context-free whining.
Again, if all you want to say is that it didn't work for you and you prefer hatch first, that's perfectly fine. But then just say it and leave it at that.
Near perfect should replace all instances of perfect in my post, but the underlying principle is the same. You cannot expect to play badly, or have your opponent play badly, then post the replays to try and prove a point.
I'm asking for near perfect plays. Try it out hundreds of thousands of times until almost all known permutations have been tried. And then see if it still holds up.
What you don't want is for half of those permutations to be full of errors. Errors like the timing is off, or an extra unit was created. That's why progamers practice the same match up on the same map against the same builds. To find and eliminate any flaws in their game. Adjustments do not become 'errors'. They become proven adjustments. After 10,000 games, the gamer has realized an earlier second pair of zerglings, an earlier overlord, or whatever, is more optimal for that instance. Something I believe leads to 'perfecting' the build.
I agree asking ideal situations is ludicrous. But accepting information as correct or true when it's not even near-ideal, is just as ludicrous.
Also, if the attitude of the poster is bad, I will disregard his opinion. I will analyze the build itself, and consider anything he says irrelevant, unless it pertains specifically to the build. When he attacks a person, I will not consider his opinion correct, since in his mind, it is also correct to attack a person.
I don't have to like the build to use it. If it's strong, I'll use it. If it improves my play, I'll use it. But I won't like it, or the creator.
By lacking in any place, I am still talking about the imperfect play. Nothing about the other builds.
-the responses are not in order, sorry for the inconvienence-
On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hey nice job with the various replays
Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy.
I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting.
People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing.
I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
The build looks solid to my eyes, I'm gonna test it soon. For one rather than optimal you should call it best-response build as under most scenarios it seems it can transition to different strategies, (defending against rush, going eco heavy etc)
However it would be interesting if you could address how the build is affected should you decide to use 1 drone to scout. Any best-response build must scout, or the build is vulnerable and thus it can be pareto-dominated by another build.
Secondly, how does your build compare to other builds in gas?
On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hey nice job with the various replays
Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy.
I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting.
People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing.
I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
It's not even his build, he held a thread to find the build. It was technically created by a guy named Lomilar.
On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hey nice job with the various replays
Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy.
I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting.
People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing.
I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
It's not even his build, he held a thread to find the build. It was technically created by a guy named Lomilar.
That's exactly what does not matter, and exactly the thing this thread shouldn't degrade to. It doesn't matter who made it, or who put it out there. Just the methods, the proof, the fine tuning, and more. Argue the topic, not around it. Have a direction if you are arguing around it, instead of arguing meaningless points.
On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hey nice job with the various replays
Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy.
I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting.
People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing.
I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
It's not even his build, he held a thread to find the build. It was technically created by a guy named Lomilar.
That's exactly what does not matter, and exactly the thing this thread shouldn't degrade to. It doesn't matter who made it, or who put it out there. Just the methods, the proof, the fine tuning, and more. Argue the topic, not around it. Have a direction if you are arguing around it, instead of arguing meaningless points.
Well it was actually meant to try and not derail the thread by letting people know that the OP is somewhat impartial to the build, and is infact defending someone else's build after some adjustments. So I think it does kinda matter to keep this thread on topic.
I'm a zerg and I'm enjoying this thread, the more we can hammer this down the better.
On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hey nice job with the various replays
Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy.
I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting.
People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing.
I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
glad another one realizes the op is just another troll that has the definitive answer to zerg bos on any map and in any matchup calling everyone a troll that critizes this build is just a choke. he never replied to the numerous complains especially when this build gets pressured, where it loses to every 14 pool as it can't catch up if it is not building drones, obviously. or that it falls behind if you actually build gas or zerglings which you will both do in every standard game. but hey don't mind this his own replays against some random players on bnet are definitive proof the build is working.
edit for a nice op quote on this topic, totally failing to answer the question:
On December 03 2010 07:48 Slayer91 wrote: What I'm trying to say is; let's say at each point in time after you put down a pool you are behind in minerals compared to a 14 pool until 5 or 6 minutes in the game (gametime). In which case if you ever need to spend enough resources on *non drones, e.g gas, ling speed, lings, spine crawlers* you may reach a point where you start to fall behind compared to a 14 pool doing things at the same time.(yes, same time game time, not same time relative to your spawning pool) Because even if you make lings at the same time as a 14 pool, his economy is better built to support that. That's what I'm saying.
Thus, any kind of pressure that's not designed to hit before a hatch first lings are out, theoretically is this builds weakness.
Now I'm not sure about how much this mineral deficit is, and how long it takes to overcome, at least not yet. It's possible that the rewards far outweigh the risks, but before every adopts this as their be all end all build we have to be rigorous.
Your entire argument and this entire discussion is meaningless because you are operating on a FALSE ASSUMPTION, that this build is behind in economy. Take a look at my last replay. 11pool vs 15 Hatch 15Pool... I am ahead in resources mined at every point from 1:30 to 4:30 when I began making lings. The data is all there, in this thread and the previous.
Obviously you aren't comparing to a build that doesn't include a hatch are you? Or do you think choosing 14 pool over 14 hatch will somehow change the drone count?
I can't even make sense of this thread anymore. What attack is going to interrupt an 11 pool? You say a 2rax? I posted a replay of me putting down a hatch AND beating a2rax AND winning on economy in the mid-game. You are still trying to claim that my economy will simply be crippled because I opened 11pool instead of 14? I just don't get it anymore...
It's not even his build, he held a thread to find the build. It was technically created by a guy named Lomilar.
the other thread is totally about theorycrafting ignoring every real situation ingame. who cares which build is ahead if you just make drones for 6 minutes? it will NEVER happen in a real game. and obviously the winner is the build with the most spawn larvae cycles. the thread gets to a total joke when you see every safe standard build in the discarded section (fe 14 pool 16 hatch)
and you mean this guy that made the bo. i see he totally knows what he is talking about:
he did not suggest doing this "Double Ex Trick eco opening"? it is a thread about a BO posted in the op which i'm answering to.... not another opening that may be more economical. and i do not have to provide DATA i have to provide an argument or prove an argument wrong. i just did this. my arguments are: - this build wastes larvae (and mining time early on which is valuable against any early pressure) - you are behind if pressured early (which the op says is a plus of this build, but you won't be able to 18 hatch if pressured and will have less drones as any regular build) - no pro uses it (yes this IS an argument)
your call?
picking one point at a time sucks btw... especially if it is the weakest in a chain of arguments and this is exactly what the op is doing. dodging the obvious flaws in his build.
Okay. If you have a queen at 3:20, and one less larva, or a queen at 3:40 and that one larva, are you ahead or behind right now? In 20 seconds? In 40 seconds? Is 20 seconds before 40 seconds? Why, then you are ahead!
You are behind if pressured early. Please provide evidence as to how you can't kill any early pressure with a freaking overpool.
No pro uses it. You know what, you are right. No pro uses this build, because no pro built this build. Pros get paid to play the game and get good at the game, not to pour over numbers and do perfect tests at very slow speed in game, because if they do that, they will not be as good at Starcraft, and they will lose where it matters in a micro battle, or not know how to play the late game correctly, which is far more important, because build orders can be copied, but late game intuition cannot. Which should you practice as a pro gamer? Which one can nobody ever take away from you as a pro gamer? The answer is intuition. The Tasteless build (any of them) has never gotten Tasteless into the GSL.
On December 03 2010 09:22 fleeze wrote: the last posts by various people referring to myself where hilarious btw. making up assumptions and statements i never made. just as expected.
Oh, you mean like when you said the OP claimed this build was ahead of hatch-first builds economically?
mind to quote me on this? i'm pretty sure i never said such a thing. but i know your reading comprehension lacks a bit just as you said before also please quote my posts in one piece instead of picking some sentences that fit your opinion. would be much appreciated.
I am really excited to try this build. 11 pool looks so much more reliable and consistent than hatch first. Thanks so much for sharing!
As for the posters trashing the build and the TC, how about less theorycraft and more replays? The TC posted several, time for you to step it up or shut up.
On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hey nice job with the various replays
Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy.
I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting.
People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing.
I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
The criticisms that were justified, I responded to. I posted replays facing practically every scenario requested.
When people ask how a scouting drone affects the build, I simply can't help but roll my eyes... It will affect the build by subtracting a few minerals. That's all. Maybe cause the queen or hatch to be a second and a half later. These things are not legitimate and not worth mentioning imo.
Gas is pretty much the same thing. Getting gas will just reduce minerals at the point you decide to get it. People seemed to think the whole build would fall apart and be worthless if they tried to get gas. So I posted a replay of me getting gas at 14 supply, and everything worked out fine.
Any argument or criticism based on claims that the BO is "behind" or inferior economically to build X-Pool is not worth discussing, because the claim is simply false and has been demonstrated to be false numerous times.
You want me to provide flawless execution and perfection in my replays? I'm sorry, I can't do that and never will. Not even IdrA can do that. And it doesn't matter in any case. It is not worth discussing. When people discuss things that aren't worth discussing, like why the OP doesn't play like God incarnate, then I call it trolling.
i can't believe people are bashing the OP for putting a build out in public domain, that is very close to the economy of some hatch first builds, but with the FLEXIBILITY to provid eincredibly solid defence, or aggression.
Blisse is an amazing troll, and a bit umad.
Why try to argue that an extremely flexible economic opener, that also happens to be super safe from cheese isnt a good new standard for Zerg openings?
On December 03 2010 11:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hey nice job with the various replays
Also thanks for sharing this, will definitely try this out!
No problem! I am happy to see people appreciate the work I am doing providing information and data to improve zerg strategy.
I think most people are happy to see this thread and the interesting implications it has, they just aren't as vocal as the trolls are.
And that's your response to everything. Anyone with criticism, anyone with feedback, anyone who does not agree that your build is the new standard for zerg, is a troll. Similarly, those who appreciate you are all amazing people. And through this paragraph, you denounce the trolls and glorify yourself without necessity. Interesting.
People are glad you put this strategy out. People aren't glad that you're trying to make this into an end all solution, and that you say 'adapt' whenever someone says something different. Please try to understand the difference, and stop acting like you`re amazing.
I`m glad this strategy exists. I`m also equally annoyed of your attitude towards all discussion and criticism, even if a lot of it is without any basis.
The criticisms that were justified, I responded to. I posted replays facing practically every scenario requested.
no you didn't. you answered with totally wrong arguments or ignored the question asked.
When people ask how a scouting drone affects the build, I simply can't help but roll my eyes... It will affect the build by subtracting a few minerals. That's all. Maybe cause the queen or hatch to be a second and a half later. These things are not legitimate and not worth mentioning imo.
you realize that one less probe has a pretty significant meaning? it's one less probe mining all the time. the concern of people mentioning this is that it will not allow a fluent build because you are missing minerals at key timings.
Gas is pretty much the same thing. Getting gas will just reduce minerals at the point you decide to get it. People seemed to think the whole build would fall apart and be worthless if they tried to get gas. So I posted a replay of me getting gas at 14 supply, and everything worked out fine.
yep your replay is proof. getting gas will reduce the minerals SIGNIFICANTLY. you lose the extractor drone and you have another 3 drones not mining gas, shaking up the timings of the build.
Any argument or criticism based on claims that the BO is "behind" or inferior economically to build X is not worth discussing, because the claim is simply false and has been demonstrated to be false numerous times.
where? with your 6 minute test? i laugh at this that is proof of nothing. there is a totally valid point even blind people should be able to see: it has less minerals until the first spawn larvae cycle hits. but you proofed it wrong with a replay where your ahead against a 15 pool zerg all the time BEFORE the extra larvae come to play. if you fail to see this is totally bullshit your blind.
You want me to provide flawless execution and perfection in my replays? I'm sorry, I can't do that and never will. Not even IdrA can do that. And it doesn't matter in any case. It is not worth discussing. When people discuss things that aren't worth discussing, like why the OP doesn't play like God incarnate, then I call it trolling.
Hope this makes things clear.
it would be enough if you demonstrated some replays against actually good players that play aggressive openings. early 1 berserker + 1 stalker pressure, very common in zvp, or 2 rax pressure with bunker or scv all in. just general builds that attack early. and to sum it up you should compare it to a 14 pool in the same situation. i bet the 14 pool has a better economy if your first spawn larvae cycle has to build zerglings. go proof me wrong you totally dodged this argument the whole thread.
I have a suggestion to everyone here... If you are complaining about this build not working due to specific variables: add those to the list of requirements.
For example: If you want a certain amount of lings out at a set time, specify that. If you want 100 gas at a specific timing, specify that. And so forth.
Then all that needs to be done is assume that you are going 11 OL, 11 Pool. Everything after that can be fine tuned to meet your requirements.
You can then run "Your" build (14 pool, whatever) through a test phase and calculate exactly what you have (lings, gas, etc...) at that time frame. Someone then can start with an 11 pool and see if they can meet those requirements by that time frame and look at the difference in minerals.
This is perfectly valid way to see how flexible this build is.
Stop saying: But 14 pool can get X zerglings by Y time and be better in every way!
Just figure out how much gas and how many lings you want and when, and then test. And if you want to scout at a specific "Time" (do not say at a specific supply as that is irrelevent) list that as a requirement. Anything else is just hearsay.
fleeze, your meandering style of discourse makes it very hard to follow what you're really trying to say. Your arguments do not make sense as they stand, especially sentences like
yep your replay is proof. getting gas will reduce the minerals SIGNIFICANTLY. you lose the extractor drone and you have another 3 drones not mining gas, shaking up the timings of the build.
Note that 14-pool without gas is also much more mineral-reach than 14-pool with. This is clearly true for any build. You make no point at all to demonstrate that 11pool is affected more severely by this than other builds assuming you take the gas at the same time. (Clearly there may be very specific times where this is the case, but it is *your* duty to show when these timings are and that these timings are relevant, given all the evidence that suggests the opposite for a large set of useful gas timings.)
Or sentences like this:
but you proofed it wrong with a replay where your ahead against a 15 pool zerg all the time BEFORE the extra larvae come to play. if you fail to see this is totally bullshit your blind
Sorry, but what the hell does this mean? He proved it in a replay and yet you prefer insulting people rather than believing that what the replay shows is meaningful? It's hard to understand your point there. You have *not* provided any meaningful comparisons in replays, you waffle on about unsubstantiated stuff based on your pseudo-logical arguments. This would be fine in a pure theory-crafting thread, but this thread has loads of actual replays, submitted by different people, and meticulously recorded mineral/drone/larvae/etc. counts across time for different builds. If you want to partake in this discussion in a serious manner, and you want to refute claims made based on data like that, then provide your own data, don't just call things "bullshit" that even "blind people" can see.
There is a timing window where 11-overpool is behind 14-pool. The OP has shown graphs of how the builds compare. The timing window where you are behind on minerals is not relevant to most of the situations you address; this already includes no-gas late-pool or hatch-first builds, so merely saying "things fall apart if you add gas" is not convincing. The same happens for any other build too.
And then you make clearly wrong statements such as
it would be enough if you demonstrated some replays against actually good players that play aggressive openings. early 1 berserker + 1 stalker pressure, very common in zvp, or 2 rax pressure with bunker or scv all in. just general builds that attack early.
The OP has demonstrated it. Look at the very first post to see replays against 2-rax for example. If you seriously claim that 11-pool is worse against early cheeses than 14-pool, please back it up with replays of your own instead of saying, without any evidence, that everyone else who has actually tried it is wrong, regardless of what data they provide to substantiate their point.
On December 03 2010 12:19 Scrimpton wrote: i can't believe people are bashing the OP for putting a build out in public domain, that is very close to the economy of some hatch first builds, but with the FLEXIBILITY to provid eincredibly solid defence, or aggression.
Blisse is an amazing troll, and a bit umad.
Why try to argue that an extremely flexible economic opener, that also happens to be super safe from cheese isnt a good new standard for Zerg openings?
It happens all the time. Rather than pay attention to the trolls, just pay attention to the people who are bashing the OP for overselling the idea and ignoring reasonable criticism along with the unreasonable.
Wait, people are suggesting this build is weak to early pressure, despite the fact that it gets an earlier pool? I am so confused. If anything, the whole problem with this build is that it fails economy wise. Which it doesn't...so yea.
The main downside I see is that the 18hatch gets the creep up at the natural slower, and sometimes you really want that creep as fast as possible.
I had no idea that the fast queen made that much of an economic difference. I'll definitely start using this from now on.
Edit: By the way, the point that your opponent will overreact to an overpool is a little strange. If this becomes standard, then clearly people would not necessarily consider it early pressure.
As long as people continue to put pylons at your ramp, I think this build might be a really good build against toss. It will let you take out the pylons much earlier. However, it might also be better to have the patrolling drone instead. I see a lot of the pros using a patrolling drone at the ramp, so there's a good chance that this is the best strategy, rather than relying on lings, which will take time to arrive, to take down a pylon.
I still think that economic builds are better. They do mine more minerals, and if they couldn't be defended, people wouldn't do them. If it turns out to be economically better to use this early pool to take down ramp pylons rather than a patrolling drone this build will definitely be the build for ZVP though. Do you know what the economic losses are using the lings from this build compared to a patrolling drone?
@fleeze & @Blisse Please give it a rest. Clearly you diagree with this build or at least the way that the OP presented it. While I wouldnt call what you have done so far trolling, lets not get to that point ok?
As far as the OP is concerned, clearly I think a few overly broad statements about how this build is better then all others. But the build itself I think is very solid with clear advantages at various points in time depending on the map and countering a larger number of all-in early attacks while adding safety at the expense of a little bit of econ.
On December 03 2010 13:19 obsid wrote: @fleeze & @Blisse Please give it a rest. Clearly you diagree with this build or at least the way that the OP presented it. While I wouldnt call what you have done so far trolling, lets not get to that point ok?
As far as the OP is concerned, clearly I think a few overly broad statements about how this build is better then all others. But the built itself I think is very solid with clear advantages at various points in time depending on the map and countering a larger number of all-in early attacks while adding safety at the expense of a little bit of econ.
I'm arguing that he does not show good enough replays to warrant any proper evaluation. I'm not sure what fleeze is arguing.
If you or the opponent cannot execute a build perfectly up to at least ~30 supply, the results are invalidated. If you or the opponent makes a significant mistake in decision making, the results are invalidated.
That's all I'm saying.
I ask for a better player like Idra because he is ridiculously meticulous about timings and those few seconds between actions. But in all honesty, just executing the early build flawlessly is enough with good decision making. I'm sure most 2000pt Diamond players can do that. However, if neither player does so in the replays, I can't form an opinion on the build. The rest is theorycrafting.
And don't be condescending. He presented it inadequately with bad replays. I want it to be shown to the best of its abilities.
I love how people consider me a troll. I'm serious in all regards.
I will practice the build more when I have spare time.
On December 03 2010 13:17 jacobman wrote: As long as people continue to put pylons at your ramp, I think this build might be a really good build against toss. It will let you take out the pylons much earlier. However, it might also be better to have the patrolling drone instead. I see a lot of the pros using a patrolling drone at the ramp, so there's a good chance that this is the best strategy, rather than relying on lings, which will take time to arrive, to take down a pylon.
I still think that economic builds are better. They do mine more minerals, and if they couldn't be defended, people wouldn't do them. If it turns out to be economically better to use this early pool to take down ramp pylons rather than a patrolling drone this build will definitely be the build for ZVP though. Do you know what the economic losses are using the lings from this build compared to a patrolling drone?
I'm not sure why you think this build means you need to use lings.
Just patrol a drone with this build and you're in the same ballpark as hatch-first build regarding econ.
You *can* use lings if you want to, but the early pool is not there for the lings, that is merely a pleasant side-effect.
As to the poster asking why people would expect early aggression, it's two-fold: First of all, this build is definitely not standard yet, so people currently don' t expect overpool for a macro build. Second, even if this becomes a standard build, the *threat* of overpool -> early aggression always remains; that's the beauty vs hatch-first, where the opponent already knows that you won't attack early.
edit: I have also created a variant that includes gas immediately after the hatch with the intent to go into either roaches or lair, as well as 2 zerglings for (late) scouting.
I'm not sure why you think this build means you need to use lings.
Just patrol a drone with this build and you're in the same ballpark as hatch-first build regarding econ.
bmn,
I know, I'm just saying that I think it's better to use the econ builds instead. From what I've seen and found, they can be defended, so I would use them since they do result in more minerals, even if it is one or two hundred.
The reason I brought up lings was because a hatch first builds only real defense against a pylon at the ramp is the patrolling drone, so if this 11 pool build can take it down more efficiently with lings than a patrolling drone can preventing a pylon than that might make this build the more economical choice against toss.
Really enjoy using this build so far. It actually handles 2rax aggression much better than I assumed. Especially considering how quickly you can get a spine crawler up by building it in the main.
On December 03 2010 13:19 obsid wrote: @fleeze & @Blisse Please give it a rest. Clearly you diagree with this build or at least the way that the OP presented it. While I wouldnt call what you have done so far trolling, lets not get to that point ok?
As far as the OP is concerned, clearly I think a few overly broad statements about how this build is better then all others. But the built itself I think is very solid with clear advantages at various points in time depending on the map and countering a larger number of all-in early attacks while adding safety at the expense of a little bit of econ.
I'm arguing that he does not show good enough replays to warrant any proper evaluation. I'm not sure what fleeze is arguing.
If you or the opponent cannot execute a build perfectly up to at least ~30 supply, the results are invalidated. If you or the opponent makes a significant mistake in decision making, the results are invalidated.
That's all I'm saying.
I ask for a better player like Idra because he is ridiculously meticulous about timings and those few seconds between actions. But in all honesty, just executing the early build flawlessly is enough with good decision making. I'm sure most 2000pt Diamond players can do that. However, if neither player does so in the replays, I can't form an opinion on the build. The rest is theorycrafting.
And don't be condescending. He presented it inadequately with bad replays. I want it to be shown to the best of its abilities.
I love how people consider me a troll. I'm serious in all regards.
I will practice the build more when I have spare time.
Why don't you post those replays? Every time someone puts effort into presenting a new build, in this case a ton of effort, along come the mad kids to kick over the sand castle.
If you are skilled enough to execute the opening "properly" then do so, and show us what that means. If you aren't that skilled, then ask someone you know who is and get them to correctly execute the build. However, if you know of no one you could ask whose execution you respect, then why would you expect any of us to know them either?
If you want to complain, you should be willing to act.
This is amazing. And terrifying for me as a protoss, as my only consolation against zerg in the early game was being able to quickly establish if they were going to go heavy econ or try to push me early... now I'm going to be left wondering, and will have to wall with my cyber core (allowing you to scout my 4gate every time) on the danger of the 11pool sending a bunch of early speedlings to runby.
On December 03 2010 13:33 Blisse wrote: I ask for a better player like Idra because he is ridiculously meticulous about timings and those few seconds between actions.
It is so ridiculous when people demand "top level" replays before giving any credence to an idea. First, Idra and Fruitdealer are not going to come down here and give you their perfect replays of trying out someone's new build. Second, if a build can be successful at the 2200 diamond level, that is proof enough that it is viable for 99.5% of people, despite occasional minute errors in the build. It is proof that the thread is useful and deserves to be taken seriously with replay-based discussion rather than theorcraft. Third, many less-than-perfect replays have demonstrated builds that went on to be viable at a wide variety of levels of play, including at the pro level, such as KCDC's fast expand.
If your only criticism of the build is "I can't evaluate this build until I see it performed flawlessly against all flawlessly performed builds that I theorycraft will beat it..."
Then, just DONT EVALUATE THE BUILD and use up all this space in the thread...
On December 03 2010 13:19 obsid wrote: @fleeze & @Blisse Please give it a rest. Clearly you diagree with this build or at least the way that the OP presented it. While I wouldnt call what you have done so far trolling, lets not get to that point ok?
As far as the OP is concerned, clearly I think a few overly broad statements about how this build is better then all others. But the built itself I think is very solid with clear advantages at various points in time depending on the map and countering a larger number of all-in early attacks while adding safety at the expense of a little bit of econ.
I'm arguing that he does not show good enough replays to warrant any proper evaluation. I'm not sure what fleeze is arguing.
If you or the opponent cannot execute a build perfectly up to at least ~30 supply, the results are invalidated. If you or the opponent makes a significant mistake in decision making, the results are invalidated.
That's all I'm saying.
I ask for a better player like Idra because he is ridiculously meticulous about timings and those few seconds between actions. But in all honesty, just executing the early build flawlessly is enough with good decision making. I'm sure most 2000pt Diamond players can do that. However, if neither player does so in the replays, I can't form an opinion on the build. The rest is theorycrafting.
And don't be condescending. He presented it inadequately with bad replays. I want it to be shown to the best of its abilities.
I love how people consider me a troll. I'm serious in all regards.
I will practice the build more when I have spare time.
Why don't you post those replays? Every time someone puts effort into presenting a new build, in this case a ton of effort, along come the mad kids to kick over the sand castle.
If you are skilled enough to execute the opening "properly" then do so, and show us what that means. If you aren't that skilled, then ask someone you know who is and get them to correctly execute the build. However, if you know of no one you could ask whose execution you respect, then why would you expect any of us to know them either?
If you want to complain, you should be willing to act.
The problem is I don't see the effort you're seeing. What I see is a build that he's defending. The replays he provide appear to be random ladder games he played using the build. Not games that were specifically played to test out, and that even attempted to be good.
I don't post the replays because I don't have the time, to play the game or to learn and execute the builds perfectly. And I don't feel it's my responsibility. He wants to prove his build is legitimate. I disagree based on what I'm seeing from the replays. If he cares to change them, I may or may not change my mind. If he doesn't, I simply move on.
Where did respect and skill come from? I said I'll look at the results if the players are playing without major errors. I even said, from what I remember as 1800 Diamond a month ago, at least they had correct fundamentals and build orders. I may be mistaken. I don't care who does it. Idra came first to my mind because he's recognized. Get any random player, even a Bronze player, that executes this with an equally skilled player and give me that replay. But only if players don't mess up build orders within ~30 supply.
I don't have time like I'm assuming everyone here does. I'm not going to take every build that pops up on Team Liquid, try it 50 times, and come back giving you the results. I expect the person suggesting the build to do that. Once they've tried it 50, or a 100 times, they better show me the best games that they have. The games where everything is perfectly done, and still their build holds off.
Why invest time learning a new build that might not even hold up in higher level play? Why would you learn the 7RR at 1000 Diamond if it becomes obsolete after 1200 Diamond, especially when you don't have time to learn and prepare every build that comes your way.
I'm only asking to see if this is worth my time. It looks interesting and promising, but that's not enough.
On December 03 2010 14:38 l90 Proof wrote: with replay-based discussion rather than theorycraft..
and I want better replays? I don't care what happened in other threads that I haven't read.
I don't understand the problem with wanting better replays. Honestly.
was messing with this build tonight it was working for me. quite flexible in zvz if you scout speedlings you can get banelings up real fast and ur speedlings wont be far behind but i can hold the expo something i used to have a huge problem with zvz. zvp its been pretty good too allowing my to punish stalker first builds and harass even zealot first builds a bit.havent really used it zvt much try to go a little econ heavier vt.
so, I'm not sure what to think of this build. Tried it at the ~2.4k level (which honestly doesnt mean much) and had my friend try a 4wg rush against me. I did win, and before I was having trouble with some blink warp gate rush builds on ladder, mostly because I am just a greedy zerg in general.
anyway, I noticed the late speed was sort of a bummer, but at the same time I FELT like i was further ahead economically because I was pumping drones pretty hard for a wee bit before the rush was coming.
anyway, after I win the game I watch the replay and notice my drone count was only around 20-21 before i started pumping the zlings, which is ridiculous for me, since I usually pump the zlings a bit later, around 26-27.
so, does the only reason why this build is "working" is because it makes you feel like you are droning harder than you actually were?
I mean, If i stopped producing at 20 drones with a 14 gas 13 pool build I could win just as easily, however in my head I would feel real bad about cutting drones so early, so I usually don't.
in zvz i was gasing at 14 and getting the 100 for speed than pulling 2 for like a minute than putting 2 back if i needed blings. zvp is a little more flexible you can gas a fair bit later i find 18/19 and have a pretty good economy
Well, I'm 5 for 5 with this build. Unfortunately that is mostly due to me being 6 pooled three times. Twice by zerg, and once by a protoss who accidentally went random. I finally found my safe build for steppes in zvz at the very least.
While it does seem the play in the replays isn't perfect, it's irrelevant to whether or not the build is viable. The original poster's goal was to demonstrate an opening build order that is highly economically oriented while retaining the flexibility for early aggression and/or defense. I believe the OP certainly succeeded in demonstrating that. Economically it matched quite well with hatch first. In all honesty, that's all that all he needed to show. Everything else was gravy. Over time those who experiment with the build can make adjustments to it depending on what's scouted, what the opponent does, and it will become more refined, leading to near perfect play. Right now, there is no replay demonstrating a build order with near perfect play.They may display good adaptability and good control, but the beauty that is RTS gaming is there is no perfection, only equalizing using asymmetrical advantages. Take the build for what it's worth.
Currently I'm playing around with it for a bit. A lot of my timings are completely thrown off, but it's quite nice to experiment for yourself. Thank you for posting this up--I know you could have just as easily kept it to yourself and slay nerds with :D
On December 03 2010 15:16 Terrifyer wrote: so, I'm not sure what to think of this build. Tried it at the ~2.4k level (which honestly doesnt mean much) and had my friend try a 4wg rush against me. I did win, and before I was having trouble with some blink warp gate rush builds on ladder, mostly because I am just a greedy zerg in general.
anyway, I noticed the late speed was sort of a bummer, but at the same time I FELT like i was further ahead economically because I was pumping drones pretty hard for a wee bit before the rush was coming.
anyway, after I win the game I watch the replay and notice my drone count was only around 20-21 before i started pumping the zlings, which is ridiculous for me, since I usually pump the zlings a bit later, around 26-27.
so, does the only reason why this build is "working" is because it makes you feel like you are droning harder than you actually were?
I mean, If i stopped producing at 20 drones with a 14 gas 13 pool build I could win just as easily, however in my head I would feel real bad about cutting drones so early, so I usually don't.
I don't know, just a thought.
I actually noticed the exact same phenomenon. One thing I played around with was throwing down a gas after the 17 overlord to try to sink drones that way for zergling speed. Honestly I feel kind of naked without that speed, especially against early stalker harass. With the extra mins, I basically sunk it into an earlier gas. I also experimented with going two gas for a really fast zergling speed, followed by taking all drones off gas for heavy powering. I also found that since the hatch goes up a bit later than with hatch first builds, I need to set the spinecrawler down earlier relative to hatch completion (pretty much when there's enough creep to) to deal with 2 barracks pressure. I've found that there are enough minerals to actually do all that, with the flexibility of two extractors already down if I need to switch over for roaches, banelings, or lair. I actually quite like this build.
For those who are looking to try it, be warned that you will most likely lose some games you may not have had you gone with an ordinary build order. This is the natural process of trying something new. It's supposed to happen! Then you'll start to realize what you need to tighten up the build.
I prefer to 15 hatch every game. And I honestly feel 11 pool is a BIT damaging for your economy, as sure the zerglings provide protection and map control, but I rather 13-15 pool. Other than that it's decent, but yeah a delayed pool could be better, even though against cheese it might be harder.
On December 03 2010 15:37 TriniMasta wrote: I prefer to 15 hatch every game. And I honestly feel 11 pool is a BIT damaging for your economy, as sure the zerglings provide protection and map control, but I rather 13-15 pool. Other than that it's decent, but yeah a delayed pool could be better, even though against cheese it might be harder.
How can you still 15 hatch? It loses guaranteed to a properly executed 2rax, or even to this 11pool build... The terrans I play go 2rax even after they scout a 10 pool lol.
On December 03 2010 15:37 TriniMasta wrote: I prefer to 15 hatch every game. And I honestly feel 11 pool is a BIT damaging for your economy, as sure the zerglings provide protection and map control, but I rather 13-15 pool. Other than that it's decent, but yeah a delayed pool could be better, even though against cheese it might be harder.
The purpose of the build is that it ISNT damaging for your economy. You DONT have to get those zerglings if you scout that your opponent isn't going for an aggressive build. The point is that the earlier queen allows you to redrone and catch up for the drones you cut by throwing down the earlier spawning pool, and it works out almost as economically as going hatch first.
On December 03 2010 15:24 Providence wrote: While it does seem the play in the replays isn't perfect, it's irrelevant to whether or not the build is viable. The original poster's goal was to demonstrate an opening build order that is highly economically oriented while retaining the flexibility for early aggression and/or defense. I believe the OP certainly succeeded in demonstrating that. Economically it matched quite well with hatch first. In all honesty, that's all that all he needed to show. Everything else was gravy. Over time those who experiment with the build can make adjustments to it depending on what's scouted, what the opponent does, and it will become more refined, leading to near perfect play. Right now, there is no replay demonstrating a build order with near perfect play.They may display good adaptability and good control, but the beauty that is RTS gaming is there is no perfection, only equalizing using asymmetrical advantages. Take the build for what it's worth.
Currently I'm playing around with it for a bit. A lot of my timings are completely thrown off, but it's quite nice to experiment for yourself. Thank you for posting this up--I know you could have just as easily kept it to yourself and slay nerds with :D
Good post. No one is saying that this build is superior to all others in every way, it's just a nice safe build that doesn't sacrifice much in the way of econ if the rush never comes.
On December 03 2010 07:33 fleeze wrote: i was comparing it to both you know? usually i prefer hatch first builds. op says this build is better economically than a 14/15 hatch. i say it's bullshit because it wastes larvae and has high opportunity costs(less minerals overall) early on. and it's behind a 14 pool if put under pressure. these are my main points.
Looking at the original posts, the claims about the build the OP makes are:
On December 02 2010 08:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:
After doing countless empirical tests regarding the most economical Zerg opening in my previous thread, we were surprised to find this 11 Overpool build doing extremely well economically. It has so far tested superior to every other pool-first build, and is only slightly behind 14Hatch/15Pool in optimum economics.
The true strength of this build however, lay in it's incredible flexibility and safety. It can easily hold off a 6pool, 2rax, 2gate, or any other kind of rush build you can think of. If you scout your opponent playing a macro game, you have the flexibility of choosing whether to punish him with a sudden attack or keep up with his economy just fine. Likely even surpass it!
There is a real psychological value to this build as well. Once your opponent scouts your 11pool, he will likely overcompensate by playing more defensive and less macro-oriented. This of course is due to the widely held misconception that a 10 pool build "must do damage, or it is behind in economy." We have proven this to simply not be the case with this specific build.
It also negates the value of early scouting by your opponents, because this build can transition into anything: heavy eco, 1-base all-in, you name it. This will force your opponent to scout consistently, which will be made all the more difficult by early lings you can get.
This build will get you more larva out by the 6-minute mark than any other tested, so it does great at holding off 4gates or other mid-game pushes.
I really enjoy this build. I played about 10 games w/ it tonight and won all except 1 of them (plat player tho).
Because this build gets a pool so early I have a few builds that I do w/ it. they start out w/
11 ovi scout 11 pool 16 queen Then I can do 18 hatch or roach warren on the 75% queen mark (with gas as well) for a pretty normal roach push. 17 ovie 18 ovie I have been getting my queen on 20 because I find that I have the minerals and don't have the larvae for the 21st drone Gas on 22-25 w/ 3 drones that come off spawn for gas 2 crawlers at nat drone to 36 and from here the game looks and feels like 14h/14p and 14p/16h. The main benefit of this build is the earlier pool and option to become a 1 base play after scout.
It really doesn't matter what you do early game (this or hatch first or gas/pool) if you make to the same point at the same time in the midgame. The process of doing an 11 overpool has a more jarring effect on the opp and can lead into 7rr as well as an eco game. The benefit of hatch first (which I love doing) is negligable when you can't defend some attacks.
I've played quite a few with this build. It does very good in 2 things: fends off early rushes such as 6 pool and 2 rax and does well mid to late game since you will have an expo running almost as good as 14/15 hatch.
There is a small window when you are saturating your expo. A strong marine push or a strong sling harass can take you down really quick. Your hatch compared to 14/15 hatch goes a bit later which means spines are also delayed. You usually need 1 or 2 to properly defend your expo. I was discussing this with Skraj but I don't we got to a optimal point of where you ought to make your spines without losing your economic advantage which is by essence what a 14/15 hatch does.
Furthermore there is another problem I've encountered. I have to say this is also a natural problem with 14/15 hatch and of course i mean Gas I've also been running tests to see when is the best time to get your first gas under this build. It seems that either after your queen is done might be best solution for now.
Let me just get this right... almost immediately after the SC2 beta was released, people realized that the earliest pool which doesn't hurt economy is 14, some people even putting it down later. This was so standard, in fact, if i remember correctly Zerg was the only race which had a stong standard way of playing early. You still see professional players going either hatch first or 14 pool, anything else seems so uncommon.
Now, a couple of months later, this random guy on a forum does a few tests and realize that 11 pool is just as economically viable as a 14 pool. How can this come so late? How can people like fruitdealer etc not have realized this? It seems just to good to be true. "You know how you want lings early but have to wait so you get a strong economy? Well, with my magic fix, you can get your lings way earlier than before AND you get the same economy!".
Is this really what's going on, or am I missing something?
I started using this tonight and so far have no complaints. I actually haven't lost with it yet. And as for why people may be confused about how this is as economically viable, my best guess is because since you have the early pool and queen, you have the option to crank out lings IF you need them, whereas if you go 14 pool, you almost always want to get out 4 lings at a minimum as a kinda scout/just-in-case sort of thing. Not to mention, in the games I played people saw an early pool and figured I was gonna do some kinda rush, where I just added on drones.
This is my question, why does everyone in the GSL 14 hatch 13 pool? Seems like the guys that play 12 hours a day would have experimented with different builds and found the best one...
Let me just get this right... almost immediately after the SC2 beta was released, people realized that the earliest pool which doesn't hurt economy is 14, some people even putting it down later. This was so standard, in fact, if i remember correctly Zerg was the only race which had a stong standard way of playing early. You still see professional players going either hatch first or 14 pool, anything else seems so uncommon.
Now, a couple of months later, this random guy on a forum does a few tests and realize that 11 pool is just as economically viable as a 14 pool. How can this come so late? How can people like fruitdealer etc not have realized this? It seems just to good to be true. "You know how you want lings early but have to wait so you get a strong economy? Well, with my magic fix, you can get your lings way earlier than before AND you get the same economy!".
Is this really what's going on, or am I missing something?
11 overpool takes advantage of 2 bumps to surpass a more steadily built up 14 pool: drones 10 and 11 come out earlier and get more mining time, and drones from the first injection also hit the field sooner, thanks to the faster queen. The queen advantage is not apparent to everyone, but basically, inject provides 150% of the larva generation of a hatchery by itself. So, given the choice between having an extra naked hatchery for a while, or having injections on top of your hatchery for that same amount of time, if you want more larva, you pick the injections.
On December 03 2010 18:45 Tobberoth wrote: Let me just get this right... almost immediately after the SC2 beta was released, people realized that the earliest pool which doesn't hurt economy is 14, some people even putting it down later. This was so standard, in fact, if i remember correctly Zerg was the only race which had a stong standard way of playing early. You still see professional players going either hatch first or 14 pool, anything else seems so uncommon.
Now, a couple of months later, this random guy on a forum does a few tests and realize that 11 pool is just as economically viable as a 14 pool. How can this come so late? How can people like fruitdealer etc not have realized this? It seems just to good to be true. "You know how you want lings early but have to wait so you get a strong economy? Well, with my magic fix, you can get your lings way earlier than before AND you get the same economy!".
Is this really what's going on, or am I missing something?
You're missing the fact that the goal isn't to make zerglings earlier. If you do that with this build you'll be behind. The goal is to have the opportunity to make them if needed while building a very strong econ with an expo.
On December 03 2010 18:45 Tobberoth wrote: Let me just get this right... almost immediately after the SC2 beta was released, people realized that the earliest pool which doesn't hurt economy is 14, some people even putting it down later. This was so standard, in fact, if i remember correctly Zerg was the only race which had a stong standard way of playing early. You still see professional players going either hatch first or 14 pool, anything else seems so uncommon.
Now, a couple of months later, this random guy on a forum does a few tests and realize that 11 pool is just as economically viable as a 14 pool. How can this come so late? How can people like fruitdealer etc not have realized this? It seems just to good to be true. "You know how you want lings early but have to wait so you get a strong economy? Well, with my magic fix, you can get your lings way earlier than before AND you get the same economy!".
Is this really what's going on, or am I missing something?
Why did it take protoss 6 years to realize corsair/dt was a great pvz opening? Why did it take zerg players almost 3 months of beta/release to realize that mutas raped thors? Why did it take terran players a month+ after patch 1.1.2 to realize you can punish hatch first with marine+scv?
Starcraft is complicated, we don't figure everything out right away. Also, there's always a tendency in SC to assume that the current builds/strategies are the best way of doing things, and as such, people don't spend much time theorycrafting about stuff like this.
On December 03 2010 18:17 genopath wrote: I've played quite a few with this build. It does very good in 2 things: fends off early rushes such as 6 pool and 2 rax and does well mid to late game since you will have an expo running almost as good as 14/15 hatch.
There is a small window when you are saturating your expo. A strong marine push or a strong sling harass can take you down really quick. Your hatch compared to 14/15 hatch goes a bit later which means spines are also delayed. You usually need 1 or 2 to properly defend your expo. I was discussing this with Skraj but I don't we got to a optimal point of where you ought to make your spines without losing your economic advantage which is by essence what a 14/15 hatch does.
Furthermore there is another problem I've encountered. I have to say this is also a natural problem with 14/15 hatch and of course i mean Gas I've also been running tests to see when is the best time to get your first gas under this build. It seems that either after your queen is done might be best solution for now.
Has anyone else experienced similar problems?
Start the spine in your main and you'll have no problem getting spines up in time.
On December 03 2010 18:45 Tobberoth wrote: Let me just get this right... almost immediately after the SC2 beta was released, people realized that the earliest pool which doesn't hurt economy is 14, some people even putting it down later. This was so standard, in fact, if i remember correctly Zerg was the only race which had a stong standard way of playing early. You still see professional players going either hatch first or 14 pool, anything else seems so uncommon.
Now, a couple of months later, this random guy on a forum does a few tests and realize that 11 pool is just as economically viable as a 14 pool. How can this come so late? How can people like fruitdealer etc not have realized this? It seems just to good to be true. "You know how you want lings early but have to wait so you get a strong economy? Well, with my magic fix, you can get your lings way earlier than before AND you get the same economy!".
Is this really what's going on, or am I missing something?
Why did it take protoss 6 years to realize corsair/dt was a great pvz opening? Why did it take zerg players almost 3 months of beta/release to realize that mutas raped thors? Why did it take terran players a month+ after patch 1.1.2 to realize you can punish hatch first with marine+scv?
Starcraft is complicated, we don't figure everything out right away. Also, there's always a tendency in SC to assume that the current builds/strategies are the best way of doing things, and as such, people don't spend much time theorycrafting about stuff like this.
I know this, but it's not really comparable IMO. One thing that makes it so that new builds come out a lot later in SC1 is because of metagame, it's more of a rotation than completely new builds. This is not the case here. As for the muta raping thors, that's because the magic box was "invented". marine+scv punishing hatch isn't anything new from what I know, bunker rushing has been a strong tactic since beta. The difference is that this 11 pool build consists of nothing new and it's nothing really complicated. IMO, it makes perfect sense for any pro to take a build and make it as safe as possible, and it makes no sense that it would take this long for someone to realize that there's no reason to build the pool at 14, it can be built at 11. There's no magic box to invent, there's no patch. It's just an earlier pool with the same economic advantage. Take your 14 pool and build it earlier to potentially have earlier lings.
The argument that "you don't actually get lings early, that will hurt the economy" isn't important either, the same is true for 14 pool, you don't actually want to build lings when it finishes.
Bear in mind, I'm not criticising the build or the OP, i'm questioning how no one came up with this earlier... why has everyone blindly played 14 pool if 11 pool is just as strong?
EDIT: Just want to say, I'm SO trying this build since it sounds awesome. It looks extremely safe and PERFECT for 2v2, 3v3 etc since it gives you so much flexibility.
i just canot believe this is the most economic pool first opening. It seems weak, i have to try but i have strong doubts.
ok, i watched a rep, the 4 gate. What level is this? Silver? The guy has energy maxed out on nexus before the warpgate finishes, he used like 3 chronoboosts in the entire game, 1 on the warp tech, 2 on the probes, could be 1. Also he had like 40 apm. He attacked at ~8:10, just FYI the 4 gates i'm dealing with come around 6th minute mark, had even at 5:30, 9th minutes is even late for 4 gate blinkstalker attack. So i have no idea if this build actually suffers from early agression so far. Gonna watch some more, really not impressed so far
So when I saw the post where this build originated from I decided to do a bunch of leg work and test things for myself.
I took data at the beginning of the second of the 6:00 mark. It's very important that it's consistantly at the beginning of the second. Note that the amount for the 11 pool is taken from the only replay that the OP provided in the post where the build originated. He has a table that claims 4620, but I believe that he got that number by taking data at the end of the second. Unless I see a replay otherwise I have to believe 2530 is the correct number at the beginning of the second since I have gotten about that every time I have done the build. Here are the results for different build orders.
NOTE: I messed up slightly on this one, but the numbers are still better than 11 pool so it's relevant Mineral Mined: 4665 Pool Placed: 2:30 Hatch Placed: 2:11
Mineral Mined: 4630 Pool Placed: 1:46 Hatch Placed: 2:38
For anyone that thinks an 11 pool doesn't affect your economy, just take note that pretty much every hatch first build under the sun performs better by at least 100 minerals, which is not that small.
Also, note that a 13P/15H also performs better. I don't know how many other builds perform better than the 11 pool, but I thought that that was relevant because the pool time on that build was only 13 seconds slower than the 11 pool build, and the hatch was quicker than the 11 pool.
Here are all the replays mentioned for you to double check things and get a more precise idea of the build orders. I also included the replay that the OP gave in his post about the 11 pool build order for convenience. Some of the replays of the hatch first builds I just winged the overlord timings, so don't follow those too closely. The only ones with planned overlord timings are the 16 Hatch 15 Pool and the 11 Pool 18 Hatch replays.
Bear in mind, I'm not criticising the build or the OP, i'm questioning how no one came up with this earlier... why has everyone blindly played 14 pool if 11 pool is just as strong?
EDIT: Just want to say, I'm SO trying this build since it sounds awesome. It looks extremely safe and PERFECT for 2v2, 3v3 etc since it gives you so much flexibility.
There are other similarities here. For example, 2 rax pressure builds were popular against zerg back when you could do low econ pressure by throwing down the barracks before depot, only later realizing 2 rax pressure is much stronger with a higher econ with depot first. Or how months after baneling busts were popularized, zergs started experimenting with high econ baneling play which are arguably more effective.
As for why it is that professional players haven't discovered simple early game ideas--korean pros still tend to 10 overlord or 10 overlord with extractor trick even though it's well documented for >10 pools that 9 overlord is the most economical. Or how after so much time, mineral boosting wasn't discovered by a pro in korea, but by a more casual player on team liquid. One reason for this is possibly that pros may be thinking "14 pool seems the best. if an earlier pool is more economical, someone else would have discovered it by now." Honestly I believe it's due to the zerg optimizer which gave the analytical tool to carefully examine the overpool (minerals mined, drone count, larvae numbers, etc.).
On December 03 2010 19:09 Geo.Rion wrote: i just canot believe this is the most economic pool first opening. It seems weak, i have to try but i have strong doubts.
ok, i watched a rep, the 4 gate. What level is this? Silver? The guy has energy maxed out on nexus before the warpgate finishes, he used like 3 chronoboosts in the entire game, 1 on the warp tech, 2 on the probes, could be 1. Also he had like 40 apm. He attacked at ~8:10, just FYI the 4 gates i'm dealing with come around 6th minute mark, had even at 5:30, 9th minutes is even late for 4 gate blinkstalker attack. So i have no idea if this build actually suffers from early agression so far. Gonna watch some more, really not impressed so far
The 6 minute 4-gate attacks are typically the 1-gas zealot/stalker only attacks. This player wanted some sentries, mostly to range against roaches. The timing of the 4 gate being slower doesn't mean the attack is weaker. Whether or not the play or micro was great I don't know, but normally with pool into hatch builds you can hold off the 4-gate with 2-5 spines, roaches, lings, and stalling for hydra tech. with an earlier pool, I imagine this would even be easier to deal with as your queen's out even earlier, with even more larvae to use (compared to say a 14 pool/15 hatch).
On December 03 2010 18:45 Tobberoth wrote: Let me just get this right... almost immediately after the SC2 beta was released, people realized that the earliest pool which doesn't hurt economy is 14, some people even putting it down later. This was so standard, in fact, if i remember correctly Zerg was the only race which had a stong standard way of playing early. You still see professional players going either hatch first or 14 pool, anything else seems so uncommon.
Now, a couple of months later, this random guy on a forum does a few tests and realize that 11 pool is just as economically viable as a 14 pool. How can this come so late? How can people like fruitdealer etc not have realized this? It seems just to good to be true. "You know how you want lings early but have to wait so you get a strong economy? Well, with my magic fix, you can get your lings way earlier than before AND you get the same economy!".
Is this really what's going on, or am I missing something?
The reason the Extractor Trick 11 Pool came up in the first place was because of Evochamber.
I do like this build, as a Platinum player it gives me counters to cheeses but still lets me play my economic playstyle Tbh, it looks like a Standard build but it actually the most diverse build there is, because it is so open! Thanks @ OP
On December 03 2010 19:09 Geo.Rion wrote: i just canot believe this is the most economic pool first opening. It seems weak, i have to try but i have strong doubts.
ok, i watched a rep, the 4 gate. What level is this? Silver? The guy has energy maxed out on nexus before the warpgate finishes, he used like 3 chronoboosts in the entire game, 1 on the warp tech, 2 on the probes, could be 1. Also he had like 40 apm. He attacked at ~8:10, just FYI the 4 gates i'm dealing with come around 6th minute mark, had even at 5:30, 9th minutes is even late for 4 gate blinkstalker attack. So i have no idea if this build actually suffers from early agression so far. Gonna watch some more, really not impressed so far
The 6 minute 4-gate attacks are typically the 1-gas zealot/stalker only attacks. This player wanted some sentries, mostly to range against roaches. The timing of the 4 gate being slower doesn't mean the attack is weaker. Whether or not the play or micro was great I don't know, but normally with pool into hatch builds you can hold off the 4-gate with 2-5 spines, roaches, lings, and stalling for hydra tech. with an earlier pool, I imagine this would even be easier to deal with as your queen's out even earlier, with even more larvae to use (compared to say a 14 pool/15 hatch).
On a map like metalopolis. This isn't happening. 6 minutes is awfully fast you don't have time to get both roaches and spine crawlers. The 4 gate with 1 gas is far more powerful, but far more "allin" since with sentries you can defend an expo against mass lings.
The OP tried to tell me that 11 pool is ahead in minerals over a 15 hatch 15 pool up to 4:30. To me this indicates some gross error because delaying drones to get an 11 pool, and losing a drone for 30 or so more seconds for the faster pool means it must necessarily be behind in minerals mined. Now it seems its not that big, there's no way it should be ahead until the first inject drones come, unless the 15 hat 15 pool is saving a lot of larva.
The reason the pros haven't found this is because they don't spend their day theorycrafting, they just play the game and hone their skills.
On December 03 2010 18:45 Tobberoth wrote: Let me just get this right... almost immediately after the SC2 beta was released, people realized that the earliest pool which doesn't hurt economy is 14, some people even putting it down later. This was so standard, in fact, if i remember correctly Zerg was the only race which had a stong standard way of playing early. You still see professional players going either hatch first or 14 pool, anything else seems so uncommon.
Now, a couple of months later, this random guy on a forum does a few tests and realize that 11 pool is just as economically viable as a 14 pool. How can this come so late? How can people like fruitdealer etc not have realized this? It seems just to good to be true. "You know how you want lings early but have to wait so you get a strong economy? Well, with my magic fix, you can get your lings way earlier than before AND you get the same economy!".
Is this really what's going on, or am I missing something?
I'm not familiar with the specifics how the 14 pool was settled on as the "best" pool first build was settled on, but I imagine that any experiments with a relatively early cutoff time would not allow for the 11 overpool build to catch up to the 14 pool in terms of economy.
Zerg economy is about managing larvae, minerals and supply. I know that the 9 OV was shown to be the "best" in an old thread where they measured economy shortly after making the overlord. A reasonable method to develop a build is to start with this "best" overlord timing, then find the "best" pool or hatch timing after that. So step by step, you can piece together a very good build order, with each step verified by some testing.
Recently, however, we've had a nice development with the build order optimizers. These run a large number number of simulated games, varying builds and testing their fitness according to a genetic algorithm. What's cool about this is that it doesn't work off of preconceived rules of thumb for builds, it can find these nice sweet spots. In this case, the lack of drone production while saving for the pool is folded into waiting for the 11/10 overlord to pop.
Will this build become standard? I guess we will have to see. It does have some compelling qualities, such as the ability to transition into either an aggressive 1 base build or strong economic 2 base build. I have some concern in that this build's economic strength lies in the ability to drone hard once the queen is out. If the opponent applies or feints early pressure, causing you to make units, then you slow yourself down in terms of catching up in economy. If you went with a later pool build, you should have more drones early on - even if you lose some drones in an attack those drones at least get some mining time in early on.
On December 03 2010 15:16 Terrifyer wrote: so, I'm not sure what to think of this build. Tried it at the ~2.4k level (which honestly doesnt mean much) and had my friend try a 4wg rush against me. I did win, and before I was having trouble with some blink warp gate rush builds on ladder, mostly because I am just a greedy zerg in general.
anyway, I noticed the late speed was sort of a bummer, but at the same time I FELT like i was further ahead economically because I was pumping drones pretty hard for a wee bit before the rush was coming.
anyway, after I win the game I watch the replay and notice my drone count was only around 20-21 before i started pumping the zlings, which is ridiculous for me, since I usually pump the zlings a bit later, around 26-27.
so, does the only reason why this build is "working" is because it makes you feel like you are droning harder than you actually were?
I mean, If i stopped producing at 20 drones with a 14 gas 13 pool build I could win just as easily, however in my head I would feel real bad about cutting drones so early, so I usually don't.
I don't know, just a thought.
I'm pretty sure you're doing it wrong if you only have 20 drones when the 4gate push comes. I've always had a lot more, both with 14 hatch 15 pool and with 11 overpool 18 hatch. I'm not 2.4k though, so perhaps my opponents do delayed pushes.
With 15 hatch 14 pool I droned until ~31 supply before building an army. With 11 overpool I do exactly the same. This works very well for me, now more so than before, since I don't need to worry about cannons etc. I see no reason why you should stop droning earlier than you did before, unless you're doing something silly like building a far too early RW, spine crawlers, or many lings. (And even then, if you did the same for 15 hatch 14 pool, you shouldn't be behind now.)
If I know it'll be a 4WG push I only build 2 lings as the pool pops for scouting; the rest of the army starts building closer to the 6-minute mark. Spine crawlers are great here since they don't need larvae and they are good to stall the push slightly to reinforce units; my timings are usually fairly tight against 4WG so that my last line of defense is only spawning as his units move towards my base.
On December 03 2010 23:00 Slayer91 wrote: The OP tried to tell me that 11 pool is ahead in minerals over a 15 hatch 15 pool up to 4:30. To me this indicates some gross error because delaying drones to get an 11 pool, and losing a drone for 30 or so more seconds for the faster pool means it must necessarily be behind in minerals mined. Now it seems its not that big, there's no way it should be ahead until the first inject drones come, unless the 15 hat 15 pool is saving a lot of larva.
I think 15 hatch 15 pool IS saving a lot of larvae, I don't see how you could build 500 worth of minerals with only 1 drone in between without accumulating larvae. I agree that it is counter-intuitive for 11-pool to be ahead early on; I never compared builds at the 4:30 stage so I can't comment beyond what was already stated.
I`m not good, but I use this every game at this point. Everything the OP says is right, it`s flexible, good long term, and holds off most early pressure builds comfortably.
The OP tried to tell me that 11 pool is ahead in minerals over a 15 hatch 15 pool up to 4:30. To me this indicates some gross error because delaying drones to get an 11 pool, and losing a drone for 30 or so more seconds for the faster pool means it must necessarily be behind in minerals mined. Now it seems its not that big, there's no way it should be ahead until the first inject drones come, unless the 15 hat 15 pool is saving a lot of larva.
The reason the pros haven't found this is because they don't spend their day theorycrafting, they just play the game and hone their skills.
Guys, please just open the replay, press the "I" button, and take a look. You've always been told early pool must delay drones, why not just take a look to see? From my experience watching these, I am ahead at 11 to 10 for a short bit, and then quickly catch-up and even surpass most of the time at 14 drones. Take a look at the replays and note I am often ahead in drones by 15+ supply.
It is simply a misconception that this build delays drones. For a few seconds, it does, but then quickly surpasses in drones. To be honest, it takes a hell of a lot more drone delay to put down a hatch at 15 supply than to put it down at 18 when you naturally have more minerals and can delay the less critical overlord.
It is a misconception that this build catches up due to earlier queen. It catches up before the queen even begins. Take a look, I am not making this up.
Also, this build did not come from Evo Chamber or any other program. Lomilar claimed he took the 7RR build and simply replaced roaches with drones and a hatch. I came up with the extractor trick and overlord timing myself after testing the build over and over trying to maximize economy. It makes sense intuitively since more time is spent near 11 supply waiting for the overlord and pool than other builds. Yes, I did test the double extractor trick, and it was behind. I don't think it is ever a good idea to double extract.
Regarding why this hasn't been discovered before, I think a lot of it has to do with it being an overpool build. Most people will test simply going 10pool because that seems more efficient than making an overlord and then building the pool. Clearly from testing the 10pool is a very inefficient build, so many people simply discarded it. Getting that 11th drone and the overlord first is the crucial difference in making this a viable economic build.
On December 02 2010 08:20 jdseemoreglass wrote: 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
[...]
So tell me what you think. Will you be trying this yourself on the ladder?
Yes. I played some time around different 11-Overpool build. I use the same start (11-Overpool, 16-Queen) for a 7RR, but I will try this FE build in the ladder. I agree that the 11-Overpool generally offers a lot of flexibility.
On December 02 2010 08:20 jdseemoreglass wrote: 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
[...]
So tell me what you think. Will you be trying this yourself on the ladder?
Yes. I played some time around different 11-Overpool build. I use the same start (11-Overpool, 16-Queen) for a 7RR, but I will try this FE build in the ladder. I agree that the 11-Overpool generally offers a lot of flexibility. The quite early Queen compensates most of the economic disadvantage while the 11-Overpool allowes early defense.
WHAT economic disadvantage? I am tired of this being repeated with absolutely nothing to back it up.
I have a replay with 11pool side by side with a 13 pool. I am ahead 11 to 9 at one point, ahead again at 14 to 13 through to the rest of the game. Take a look at minerals mined, at any point in the game you want. Everyone stop repeating and believing these things when I have shown them to be false.
Guys, please just open the replay, press the "I" button, and take a look. You've always been told early pool must delay drones, why not just take a look to see? From my experience watching these, I am ahead at 11 to 10 for a short bit, and then quickly catch-up and even surpass most of the time at 14 drones. Take a look at the replays and note I am often ahead in drones by 15+ supply.
It is simply a misconception that this build delays drones. For a few seconds, it does, but then quickly surpasses in drones. To be honest, it takes a hell of a lot more drone delay to put down a hatch at 15 supply than to put it down at 18 when you naturally have more minerals and can delay the less critical overlord.
It is a misconception that this build catches up due to earlier queen. It catches up before the queen even finishes. Take a look, I am not making this up.
jd, until I see a new replay that you say does better with minerals, nothing you say about this build holds any weight with me.
A simple 13 pool 15 hatch beats the replay of this build you posted on the original thread it came from while only delaying the pool by 13 seconds. Also, every hatch first build I tested beat this build by at least 100 minerals. I posted replays for all of this for anyone to check earlier in this thread. This build just sets you back economically. The only reason people like it is because they feel comfy and safe having the pool sitting around doing nothing really early.
Guys, please just open the replay, press the "I" button, and take a look. You've always been told early pool must delay drones, why not just take a look to see? From my experience watching these, I am ahead at 11 to 10 for a short bit, and then quickly catch-up and even surpass most of the time at 14 drones. Take a look at the replays and note I am often ahead in drones by 15+ supply.
It is simply a misconception that this build delays drones. For a few seconds, it does, but then quickly surpasses in drones. To be honest, it takes a hell of a lot more drone delay to put down a hatch at 15 supply than to put it down at 18 when you naturally have more minerals and can delay the less critical overlord.
It is a misconception that this build catches up due to earlier queen. It catches up before the queen even finishes. Take a look, I am not making this up.
jd, until I see a new replay that you say does better with minerals, nothing you say about this build holds any weight with me.
A simple 13 pool 15 hatch beats the replay of this build you posted on the original thread it came from while only delaying the pool by 13 seconds. Also, every hatch first build I tested beat this build by at least 100 minerals. I posted replays for all of this for anyone to check earlier in this thread. This build just sets you back economically. The only reason people like it is because they feel comfy and safe having the pool sitting around doing nothing really early.
jacobman, if you really believe this to be true, then let's play a game to test. You go whatever build you want, and I will go 11 overpool, and we can compare data side-by-side in a replay for all to see.
On December 03 2010 23:45 Roban wrote: For everyone who says the OP must be wrong because you delay drones:
Keep in mind that you also get the 9th, 10th and 11th drone FASTER.
So by your logic this build must be economically ahead of 15h14p builds that delay those very drones.
I say the OP is wrong because I've done extensive testing of build orders since his original post and I've posted replays showing he is wrong. People are either in serious denial or just want to ignore the data that shows the build is economically behind and isn't even the best pool first build. No one has yet to prove me wrong with their own replay.
jacobman, if you really believe this to be true, then let's play a game to test. You go whatever build you want, and I will go 11 overpool, and we can compare data side-by-side in a replay for all to see.
encRoach 415 to add.
Because that's a dumb test. First of all, I'm not the quickest player, and it took me many tries to get the 11 pool and 13 pool builds I did to be practically perfect. Second of all it's not needed. You don't need to be in the same game to compare builds economically, how we were before. I already spent a ton of time testing builds. It's your turn to give me a replay that shows the build can even beat the 13 pool 15 hatch build that I posted economically.
jacobman, if you really believe this to be true, then let's play a game to test. You go whatever build you want, and I will go 11 overpool, and we can compare data side-by-side in a replay for all to see.
encRoach 415 to add.
Because that's a dumb test. First of all, I'm not the quickest player, and it took me many tries to get the 11 pool and 16 pool builds I did to be practically perfect. Second of all it's not needed. You don't need to be in the same game to compare builds economically, how we were before. I already spent a ton of time testing builds. It's your turn to give me a replay that shows the build can even beat the 13 pool 15 hatch build that I posted economically.
Take a look at the last replay. It opens 11pool to 13 pool, with two diamond players who have 200+ APM at the start. There is perfect evidence right there.
I've got about 9 replays posted, and an entire thread where this issue was discussed in length. The simplest way to test this is to put it side-by-side... I'm not gonna have a replay war with you when I just offered to test it. I have confidence in my build, and to say your timing is slow is a cop out. We can put the speed setting on slowest if that makes you more comfortable. Otherwise please just put this to rest.
I don't see why people are so quick to shut down a build because no pros do it. To get a " true test" it would have to be done in 100s of games in different scenarios. The best part is an earlier pool. The few extra minerals aren't gonna help if you can't survive or you do survive but are extremely crippled in the process. So I say good job to the OP for providing a thought out post and replays. People hardly like to point out the positives and quick to make up negatives.
jacobman, if you really believe this to be true, then let's play a game to test. You go whatever build you want, and I will go 11 overpool, and we can compare data side-by-side in a replay for all to see.
encRoach 415 to add.
Because that's a dumb test. First of all, I'm not the quickest player, and it took me many tries to get the 11 pool and 16 pool builds I did to be practically perfect. Second of all it's not needed. You don't need to be in the same game to compare builds economically, how we were before. I already spent a ton of time testing builds. It's your turn to give me a replay that shows the build can even beat the 13 pool 15 hatch build that I posted economically.
I've got about 9 replays posted, and an entire thread where this issue was discussed in length. The simplest way to test this is to put it side-by-side... I'm not gonna have a replay war with you when I just offered to test it. I have confidence in my build, and to say your timing is slow is a cop out. We can put the speed setting on slowest if that makes you more comfortable. Otherwise please just put this to rest.
If you're referring the games you played on ladder those hardly can be compared to anything, and likely fall way behind the single replay that I've seen posted where you don't have to worry about what your opponent is doing. If there were other replays of your build where you were testing it economically and did better than the main one you have posted in your original thread, then link me to them because I haven't seen them.
Saying that I'm slow is not a cop out. When I was testing the builds I always tested them in slow and there were so many times where I accidentally made an extra drone or forgot an overlord or forgot to larva inject. Every time that happens you have to restart, which takes for freaking ever since you're playing it in the slowest mode possible. Not to mention that I'm not sure that the mineral lines on any particular level are completely even. I do know that there are significant differences in mining rates between levels, but I never tested different locations on the same map.
My point is that doing slow games with you until we both get our builds perfect at the same time is making me spend tons of extra time I don't need to. I've already done all of that. You saying to just drop it because I don't want to invest the time it takes to run however many slow games it takes to get a good replay is just you wanting to deny that your build isn't even as good as the 13 pool I posted. Instead of trying to waste my time and saying I should drop it when I don't want to, you should just produce your own replay that actually comes out ahead of mine economically. I doubt you even watched any of the replays I posted anyways. Perhaps you should start there.
jacobman, if you really believe this to be true, then let's play a game to test. You go whatever build you want, and I will go 11 overpool, and we can compare data side-by-side in a replay for all to see.
encRoach 415 to add.
Because that's a dumb test. First of all, I'm not the quickest player, and it took me many tries to get the 11 pool and 16 pool builds I did to be practically perfect. Second of all it's not needed. You don't need to be in the same game to compare builds economically, how we were before. I already spent a ton of time testing builds. It's your turn to give me a replay that shows the build can even beat the 13 pool 15 hatch build that I posted economically.
I've got about 9 replays posted, and an entire thread where this issue was discussed in length. The simplest way to test this is to put it side-by-side... I'm not gonna have a replay war with you when I just offered to test it. I have confidence in my build, and to say your timing is slow is a cop out. We can put the speed setting on slowest if that makes you more comfortable. Otherwise please just put this to rest.
If you're referring the games you played on ladder those hardly can be compared to anything, and likely fall way behind the single replay that I've seen posted where you don't have to worry about what your opponent is doing. If there were other replays of your build where you were testing it economically and did better than the main one you have posted in your original thread, then link me to them because I haven't seen them.
Saying that I'm slow is not a cop out. When I was testing the builds I always tested them in slow and there were so many times where I accidentally made an extra drone or forgot an overlord or forgot to larva inject. Every time that happens you have to restart, which takes for freaking ever since you're playing it in the slowest mode possible. Not to mention that I'm not sure that the mineral lines on any particular level are completely even. I do know that there are significant differences in mining rates between levels, but I never tested different locations on the same map.
My point is that doing slow games with you until we both get our builds perfect at the same time is making me spend tons of extra time I don't need to. I've already done all of that. You saying to just drop it because I don't want to invest the time it takes to run however many slow games it takes to get a good replay is just you wanting to deny that your build isn't even as good as the 13 pool I posted. Instead of trying to waste my time and saying I should drop it when I don't want to, you should just produce your own replay that actually comes out ahead of mine economically. I doubt you even watched any of the replays I posted anyways. Perhaps you should start there.
The way I see it, the burden of proof is on you Jacob.
Jdsee has already brought forth a mound of evidence to back up his claims - evidence you're attempting to refute with anecdotal stories and a single replay.
Jd has already offered to test your hypothesis with you, and instead of taking him up on the offer you spend two paragraphs worming your way out of it.
If you have confidence that you are right, but refuse to demonstrate on demand, then it's your responsibility to pick through the replay, record, and post the numbers for comparison.
But to perfect a build it takes TIME. You have test it more than 10 games and with an opponent doing nothing that's the best way to get an accurate result. Also ladder games are a good way to test a build because it's unpredictable. A custom game can be predicted and tournament game a player will wanna play safer to not drop out the tourney.
jacobman, if you really believe this to be true, then let's play a game to test. You go whatever build you want, and I will go 11 overpool, and we can compare data side-by-side in a replay for all to see.
encRoach 415 to add.
Because that's a dumb test. First of all, I'm not the quickest player, and it took me many tries to get the 11 pool and 16 pool builds I did to be practically perfect. Second of all it's not needed. You don't need to be in the same game to compare builds economically, how we were before. I already spent a ton of time testing builds. It's your turn to give me a replay that shows the build can even beat the 13 pool 15 hatch build that I posted economically.
I've got about 9 replays posted, and an entire thread where this issue was discussed in length. The simplest way to test this is to put it side-by-side... I'm not gonna have a replay war with you when I just offered to test it. I have confidence in my build, and to say your timing is slow is a cop out. We can put the speed setting on slowest if that makes you more comfortable. Otherwise please just put this to rest.
If you're referring the games you played on ladder those hardly can be compared to anything, and likely fall way behind the single replay that I've seen posted where you don't have to worry about what your opponent is doing. If there were other replays of your build where you were testing it economically and did better than the main one you have posted in your original thread, then link me to them because I haven't seen them.
Saying that I'm slow is not a cop out. When I was testing the builds I always tested them in slow and there were so many times where I accidentally made an extra drone or forgot an overlord or forgot to larva inject. Every time that happens you have to restart, which takes for freaking ever since you're playing it in the slowest mode possible. Not to mention that I'm not sure that the mineral lines on any particular level are completely even. I do know that there are significant differences in mining rates between levels, but I never tested different locations on the same map.
My point is that doing slow games with you until we both get our builds perfect at the same time is making me spend tons of extra time I don't need to. I've already done all of that. You saying to just drop it because I don't want to invest the time it takes to run however many slow games it takes to get a good replay is just you wanting to deny that your build isn't even as good as the 13 pool I posted. Instead of trying to waste my time and saying I should drop it when I don't want to, you should just produce your own replay that actually comes out ahead of mine economically. I doubt you even watched any of the replays I posted anyways. Perhaps you should start there.
The way I see it, the burden of proof is on you Jacob.
Jdsee has already brought forth a mound of evidence to back up his claims - evidence you're attempting to refute with anecdotal stories and a single replay.
Jd has already offered to test your hypothesis with you, and instead of taking him up on the offer you spend two paragraphs worming your way out of it.
If you have confidence that you are right, but refuse to demonstrate on demand, then it's your responsibility to pick through the replay, record, and post the numbers for comparison.
Jd has offered some evidence. There is no mound to be found. He's only put up one replay of his that's not in a game. I can take a look at his ladder games too, but I find it really hard to believe that his ladder games are going to outdo the replay where he was only focusing on economy and playing it on the slowest speed possible.
Also, I'm not refuting with with anecdotal stories of a single replay. I posted the replay, his replay, and a replay of me doing his build, all which show him behind. I've already spent a ton of time testing this and at this point the burden is on jd to at least take a look at the replay and then see if he can produce a replay that beats mine.
here's a repost since any posts on a previous page are obviously anecdotal to you.
So when I saw the post where this build originated from I decided to do a bunch of leg work and test things for myself.
I took data at the beginning of the second of the 6:00 mark. It's very important that it's consistantly at the beginning of the second. Note that the amount for the 11 pool is taken from the only replay that the OP provided in the post where the build originated. He has a table that claims 4620, but I believe that he got that number by taking data at the end of the second. Unless I see a replay otherwise I have to believe 2530 is the correct number at the beginning of the second since I have gotten about that every time I have done the build. Here are the results for different build orders.
NOTE: I messed up slightly on this one, but the numbers are still better than 11 pool so it's relevant Mineral Mined: 4665 Pool Placed: 2:30 Hatch Placed: 2:11
Mineral Mined: 4630 Pool Placed: 1:46 Hatch Placed: 2:38
For anyone that thinks an 11 pool doesn't affect your economy, just take note that pretty much every hatch first build under the sun performs better by at least 100 minerals, which is not that small.
Also, note that a 13P/15H also performs better. I don't know how many other builds perform better than the 11 pool, but I thought that that was relevant because the pool time on that build was only 13 seconds slower than the 11 pool build, and the hatch was quicker than the 11 pool.
Here are all the replays mentioned for you to double check things and get a more precise idea of the build orders. I also included the replay that the OP gave in his post about the 11 pool build order for convenience. Some of the replays of the hatch first builds I just winged the overlord timings, so don't follow those too closely. The only ones with planned overlord timings are the 16 Hatch 15 Pool and the 11 Pool 18 Hatch replays.
On December 04 2010 00:35 raf3776 wrote: But to perfect a build it takes TIME. You have test it more than 10 games and with an opponent doing nothing that's the best way to get an accurate result. Also ladder games are a good way to test a build because it's unpredictable. A custom game can be predicted and tournament game a player will wanna play safer to not drop out the tourney.
I agree it's a good way to test a build as far as finding the weaknesses and strengths of the build. I'm just saying that it won't do much in our economy argument. The replays he and I did earlier were focused entirely on getting economy so that you could figure out which build had the better economic potential. I'm just saying that I have a 13 pool 15 hatch build that performs better and only delays the pool by 13 seconds. Not a single replay that I remember seeing needed that extra 13 seconds.
PS I already put in tons of time to get the replays I posted earlier, which is why I don't feel like doing that again to get a replay with him right now. Perhaps another day, but I'm worn out with BO testing right now.
So I've tried reading through this thread, but it's painful. I had three major questions/concerns when looking at this build...
1. When does the 2nd queen come out in comparison to a more standard pool first and a hatch first build? (answered below me, thanks!) 2. Do you have enough larvae to spare early vomits for creep tumors to get creep spreading early? 3. How is it for getting the expo down at 18? It seems like if this build ever became popular players would begin to keep the scouting drone around to block for the expansion at 18 with a pylon or engy bay. I suppose you can get lings out in time to tear it down though. With 14 hatch on 4 player maps you have a pretty good shot at getting the expo free and clear.
It seems interesting, I'm going to give it a try and see how it feels. I wouldn't use it on a 4 player map, or even a larger map (I'd rather hatch first I think), but it seems like it might be good for smaller maps or maps where you can't grab an early 3rd like Jungle. I think PvZ on jungle this could be really nice because if the Protoss goes for a 14 Nexus you're in position to pressure rather than running into the problem of being 2 bases vs 2 bases without a good 3rd to take.
EDIT: You could have also have probably avoided some of the trolling with a more modest title and a more humble tone to the post :/. When you claim something is the greatest and standard people are going to immediately fire back.
According to my tests both builds are pretty much even economically. You just have to decide if you value the earlier pool or faster creep more.
Thanks for actually trying to do a comparison of your own instead of trying to make me do extra work that isn't needed. Those results seem perfectly possible. Could you post the replays of the two? That would be useful. I always end up with closer to 3530 or 3540 with the 11 pool, which is also what the OP's replay showed. I'm going to watch his ladder games closely and see if maybe he changed something that he didn't mention to make it better since the original replay he posted.
Bit of a tangent (and I can't comment on the whole thread because I lost track around page 13), but everyone should try out each of these builds, if for no other reason than to improve your game I've been trying to test these builds in YABOT and trust me, trying to get the build down perfect creates all kinds of awesome habits (like constantly checking for free larvae), and introducing other variables like when to gas, when to scout, etc will make all this stuff second nature. Sheer repetition. You start shaving off a second here, a few seconds there and suddenly you're getting stuff out a LOT faster.
So regardless of how this discussion turns out, I'm already better haha. I'm around mid diamond (1200'ish) so I'm sure some of you know what I mean. Thanks all.
edit: as for something relevant, if nothing else we've found viable alternatives to the 14 pool, and we can at least go pool first and still have a viable economic build and likewise be less vulnerable to cheese. Cool. Although in an ideal situation, we'd still go 14 hatch/15 pool
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
On December 04 2010 00:12 raf3776 wrote: I don't see why people are so quick to shut down a build because no pros do it. To get a " true test" it would have to be done in 100s of games in different scenarios. The best part is an earlier pool. The few extra minerals aren't gonna help if you can't survive or you do survive but are extremely crippled in the process. So I say good job to the OP for providing a thought out post and replays. People hardly like to point out the positives and quick to make up negatives.
I am quite convinced that the 11-pool will be a famous build. It combines a lot of advantages while having very few setbacks. The longer I think about it, the more I think that 11-Overpool is the general "best" pool possible. Of course in certain match-ups on certain maps, other zerg BOs can still be better. But I like the idea to use a single general BO and refine it instead of learning several completely different BOs.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I stopped playing right before the 6 minute mark in both test games, so i did some extrapolating in the results above. Posting with results at 5:50 instead + Show Spoiler +
I checked some of the replays and it looked nice. My criticism of one I saw would be the 4gate. The protoss just seemed to be throw his units away. However I'm excited about this and will be trying it out on ladder after a few practices against the computer.
Really thanks OP. I watched your original thread with interest and am glad to see you persevered through a lot of trolling and flaming to come up this.
On December 04 2010 01:28 noWei wrote: I checked some of the replays and it looked nice. My criticism of one I saw would be the 4gate. The protoss just seemed to be throw his units away. However I'm excited about this and will be trying it out on ladder after a few practices against the computer.
Really thanks OP. I watched your original thread with interest and am glad to see you persevered through a lot of trolling and flaming to come up this.
Thank you. I am persevering with this because I really believe it is the safest, most flexible economic build possible, and can change the Zerg race. Also, for every person trolling the thread, I get 5 posts or PM's thanking me for the work.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I apologize if I was too dismissive about your testing. I've been testing these builds for 5 days straight and have had to counter an endless stream of criticisms and claims, many of them unjustified. I've provided replays by request, repeated tests by request, extended the data sample times by request, changed the comparative criteria by request, and on and on...
You said you didn't disagree with the previous posters data, and the differences were very small (less than 50 minerals), and you still admit your build is behind in drones. Did I get this right? If you think the difference is 100+ minerals then I will test them, otherwise I think it is not very relevant to the thread.
On December 04 2010 01:28 noWei wrote: I checked some of the replays and it looked nice. My criticism of one I saw would be the 4gate. The protoss just seemed to be throw his units away. However I'm excited about this and will be trying it out on ladder after a few practices against the computer.
Really thanks OP. I watched your original thread with interest and am glad to see you persevered through a lot of trolling and flaming to come up this.
Thank you. I am persevering with this because I really believe it is the safest, most flexible economic build possible, and can change the Zerg race. Also, for every person trolling the thread, I get 5 posts or PM's thanking me for the work.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I apologize if I was too dismissive about your testing. I've been testing these builds for 5 days straight and have had to counter an endless stream of criticisms and claims, many of them unjustified. I've provided replays by request, repeated tests by request, extended the data sample times by request, changed the comparative criteria by request, and on and on...
You said you didn't disagree with the previous posters data, and the differences were very small (less than 50 minerals), and you still admit your build is behind in drones. Did I get this right? If you think the difference is 100+ minerals then I will test them, otherwise I think it is not very relevant to the thread.
I haven't actually looked at the replay of the 11 pool of the other person yet. I only checked the 13 pool so far. It's not perfect, but it's close. He does make an extra drone before the first queen which slows down the queen. I actually sit on 3 larva for a very short period to get the queen out quicker. I'm about to watch the 11 pool replay though.
I was just saying that the numbers seemed like they were in the realm of possibility. I'll have to see.
Besides that, all trials I have done, including your replay, have put the 13 pool ahead by 100 minerals. I'll get back to you after I've watched the replay.
Also, sorry if I seem like I'm gunning for your build. I actually think the build is pretty cool. I'm not sure if it really is the best, but I definitely don't think it's a bad build. I was just getting really annoyed that it seemed like no one was even glancing at what I was finding with regards to build comparisons.
On December 04 2010 01:28 noWei wrote: I checked some of the replays and it looked nice. My criticism of one I saw would be the 4gate. The protoss just seemed to be throw his units away. However I'm excited about this and will be trying it out on ladder after a few practices against the computer.
Really thanks OP. I watched your original thread with interest and am glad to see you persevered through a lot of trolling and flaming to come up this.
Thank you. I am persevering with this because I really believe it is the safest, most flexible economic build possible, and can change the Zerg race. Also, for every person trolling the thread, I get 5 posts or PM's thanking me for the work.
On December 04 2010 01:16 jacobman wrote:
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I apologize if I was too dismissive about your testing. I've been testing these builds for 5 days straight and have had to counter an endless stream of criticisms and claims, many of them unjustified. I've provided replays by request, repeated tests by request, extended the data sample times by request, changed the comparative criteria by request, and on and on...
You said you didn't disagree with the previous posters data, and the differences were very small (less than 50 minerals), and you still admit your build is behind in drones. Did I get this right? If you think the difference is 100+ minerals then I will test them, otherwise I think it is not very relevant to the thread.
I haven't actually looked at the replay of the 11 pool of the other person yet. I only checked the 13 pool so far. It's not perfect, but it's close. He does make an extra drone before the first queen which slows down the queen. I actually sit on 3 larva for a very short period to get the queen out quicker. I'm about to watch the 11 pool replay though.
I was just saying that the numbers seemed like they were in the realm of possibility. I'll have to see.
Besides that, all trials I have done, including your replay, have put the 13 pool ahead by 100 minerals. I'll get back to you after I've watched the replay.
Also, sorry if I seem like I'm gunning for your build. I actually think the build is pretty cool. I'm not sure if it really is the best, but I definitely don't think it's a bad build. I was just getting really annoyed that it seemed like no one was even glancing at what I was finding with regards to build comparisons.
I can't seem to find the exact pool-first build order you would like me to test. Please be as specific as possible, including maynarding etc.
The thing is all this testing for this build is quite unneccesary as anyone can easily conclude a 11 pool is economically worse then a 13/14 pool by simply thinking.
A 14 pool is the fastest pool without cutting drones / larvae time. As a result it IS the most efficient build up till the point the first queens arrive. A 11 pool IS behind for quite some time untill the earlier injects from the queen pay off with more drones.... However anyone who has tested it properly will realize that a 11 pool + non-stop droning + expanding is not feasible in a real game as you NEED scouting and some lings in a real game. As a result 11 pool builds will not catch up to 13/14 pool builds because you simply don't have the money to spend all your larvae if you are getting lings and as a result 13/14 pool is most times just better (as more larvae due to earlier queens is the ONLY economical advantage a 11 pool has over a 14 pool).
Every 'test' so far not including gas, scouting, lings or whatever so far is 100% useless. The game is not about blind macro builds, if it was every terran would be 15ccing or protoss 17 nexusing. You need builds with a good combination of economy and early units as your standard build, which is always the build where you make non-stop drones/scv's/probes without cutting anything for your first production building. As a result 14 pool, 13 gate and 12 barracks are the 3 most standard builds in the game... Because they are the most economical IF you need a few early units as well....
11 pool is only good for tricking your opponent into things, for the rest it's really just worse then other builds.
On December 04 2010 01:28 noWei wrote: I checked some of the replays and it looked nice. My criticism of one I saw would be the 4gate. The protoss just seemed to be throw his units away. However I'm excited about this and will be trying it out on ladder after a few practices against the computer.
Really thanks OP. I watched your original thread with interest and am glad to see you persevered through a lot of trolling and flaming to come up this.
Thank you. I am persevering with this because I really believe it is the safest, most flexible economic build possible, and can change the Zerg race. Also, for every person trolling the thread, I get 5 posts or PM's thanking me for the work.
On December 04 2010 01:16 jacobman wrote:
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I apologize if I was too dismissive about your testing. I've been testing these builds for 5 days straight and have had to counter an endless stream of criticisms and claims, many of them unjustified. I've provided replays by request, repeated tests by request, extended the data sample times by request, changed the comparative criteria by request, and on and on...
You said you didn't disagree with the previous posters data, and the differences were very small (less than 50 minerals), and you still admit your build is behind in drones. Did I get this right? If you think the difference is 100+ minerals then I will test them, otherwise I think it is not very relevant to the thread.
I haven't actually looked at the replay of the 11 pool of the other person yet. I only checked the 13 pool so far. It's not perfect, but it's close. He does make an extra drone before the first queen which slows down the queen. I actually sit on 3 larva for a very short period to get the queen out quicker. I'm about to watch the 11 pool replay though.
I was just saying that the numbers seemed like they were in the realm of possibility. I'll have to see.
Besides that, all trials I have done, including your replay, have put the 13 pool ahead by 100 minerals. I'll get back to you after I've watched the replay.
Also, sorry if I seem like I'm gunning for your build. I actually think the build is pretty cool. I'm not sure if it really is the best, but I definitely don't think it's a bad build. I was just getting really annoyed that it seemed like no one was even glancing at what I was finding with regards to build comparisons.
I can't seem to find the exact pool-first build order you would like me to test. Please be as specific as possible, including maynarding etc.
Sorry that is my mistake. I didn't bother putting the exact build orders because I posted so many builds at once, and I had the replay on there.
21 queen (move the first queen to expansion right after this larva inject and then larva inject whenever a queen has 25 energy)
23 meynard 3 drones to expansion and rally both bases to expansion (rally main back to the main when the expansion has 16 drones on it)
23 overlord
31 overlord
43 overlord (wing overlords from there. This last one might even be early. I can't remember if I figured the timing for this overlord out perfectly or not.)
Even though I'm not saying a thing here, bere sure both jacobman and jd that I read this thread every 3 hours or so because of you 2. jd's build seem really good, but it has to be fully tested. Criticism is good if it is supported by facts. If I had access to SC2 (working on my thesis makes me a TL reader only instead of a sc2 player, sad but true) I'd be the first to test both builds. So, go on guys!
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I just tested your 13/15 replay against an adaptation of the 11/18 (11/15). I figured that your build was ahead by ~100 minerals because you got your hatch at 15, before queen.
I use the 11-overpool, but go for hatch at 15 in order to mimic your build. Since both builds converge on a 15-hatch, the period following it is irrelevant (assuming all else equal). On my first try, spawning south Xel'Naga, here were my results:
The 11 pool comes out 14 seconds faster, and the hatch being delayed by 2 seconds was simply the difference in 1 drone mining wave (you can check the replays yourself). So the 11-overpool, regardless of getting a hatch at 15, or 18, is at worst equivalent in economy but with an earlier pool. Please, let me know if you see some glaring flaw in my logic.
Also, if you go to 6:00 min mark, you'll find I'm behind by 95 minerals. However, if you take a look at my maynarding of workers, I think you'll see why I don't think this is a reasonable sample to draw any conclusion from. Since this build and the 13/15 converge on a 15-hatch, I don't think further comparison is necessary since the difference could only be less than a hatch larva cycle (one build or the other rebuilds their 15th drone <15 seconds early).
i dont think you can play this vs all races. vs an all in ling att, the fe will die, most likely the main as well. but vs t and p it seems solid. im suprised the 11pool is econ wise effective though. ill check it out...
On December 03 2010 23:00 Slayer91 wrote: The OP tried to tell me that 11 pool is ahead in minerals over a 15 hatch 15 pool up to 4:30.
No.
The OP tried to tell you that in a specific game, which he posted a replay for, he was ahead of a 15hatch build. And he was. Watch the replay. He was ahead on resources, drones, and tech, because the 15hatch player early scouted (which AFAIK is pretty much required when going hatch first), and saved 3 larvae to build lings as soon as his pool finished, which is not at all unreasonable for a hatch-first build to do after when scouting an 11 pool.
On December 04 2010 01:28 Pehrfect wrote: I stopped playing right before the 6 minute mark in both test games, so i did some extrapolating in the results above. Posting with results at 5:50 instead + Show Spoiler +
It still seems as though both builds are more or less equal (at least when only looking at minerals mined).
I looked at the replays. Thanks a lot for doing that. It's always helpful to have more data. It does appear that in your replays the builds are basically at a stalemate economically. Unfortunately neither was executed perfectly. No big deal though. That's really hard to do. It does however show how important it is for people to test builds themselves. If you can't do the build perfectly you may lose or gain more minerals through variation than the actual build.
I compared your posts to mine and I was about 200 minerals ahead you at the 5:50, 5:55, and 5:57 marks when we both went 13 pool 15 hatch. It's obvious that there is a bit of variance possible in your tests. Like I said before though, it's great to test it for yourself
I've been doing variations of this for a long time, I never have liked going hatch first. I usually get a set or 3 of lings early, though, and hatch somewhere around 20-22 otherwise they can scout your base forever.
On December 03 2010 23:45 Roban wrote: For everyone who says the OP must be wrong because you delay drones:
Keep in mind that you also get the 9th, 10th and 11th drone FASTER.
So by your logic this build must be economically ahead of 15h14p builds that delay those very drones.
Drone 9 comes at exactly the same time for every zerg build known to man, since I don't think anybody is using 8OL. You only get 10 and 11 faster. 10 is slightly faster, 11 is quite a bit faster, but there's a very significant delay on drones 12-14. When I did 9OL vs extractor trick testing, 9OL was behind for a very small period of time due to drones 10 and 11 being slower, but drones 12-14 are enough faster that it pulls ahead very quickly. And in that comparison, there was no pool on 11, which delays drones 12-14 a *lot* more.
The OP has started to go a little bit off the deep end IMO in trying to claim that the 11pool isn't behind early because of those drone delays. It is, and that's very easy to prove. It's the first inject that pulls it ahead.
On December 04 2010 01:28 Pehrfect wrote: I stopped playing right before the 6 minute mark in both test games, so i did some extrapolating in the results above. Posting with results at 5:50 instead + Show Spoiler +
It still seems as though both builds are more or less equal (at least when only looking at minerals mined).
I looked at the replays. Thanks a lot for doing that. It's always helpful to have more data. It does appear that in your replays the builds are basically at a stalemate economically. Unfortunately neither was executed perfectly. No big deal though. That's really hard to do. It does however show how important it is for people to test builds themselves. If you can't do the build perfectly you may lose or gain more minerals through variation than the actual build.
I compared your posts to mine and I was about 200 minerals ahead you at the 5:50, 5:55, and 5:57 marks when we both went 13 pool 15 hatch. It's obvious that there is a bit of variance possible in your tests. Like I said before though, it's great to test it for yourself
Indeed, I'm assuming this is because the main base is oversaturated for quite some time, and I should have maynarded more drones. This is the case for both builds though, so I guess the effect is marginal since I end up with about the same amount of drones in both builds.
Btw I redid the 13 pool test and didn't get a drone before the second queen this time. Turns out I ended up with 20 minerals less at 5:50
I love this opener, staying on 1 base and not rushing to a 14 hatch makes everyone so wary of me - they cant blindly execute a random build order because they fear my early aggression, which in turns lets me win on econ.
The major problem I have with zerg is getting to the 45-50 supply stage without caving to an early attack, and that psychological edge of staying 1 base for a bit longer helps so much.
I still need to work on gas timings - but its pretty great so far.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I just tested your 13/15 replay against an adaptation of the 11/18 (11/15). I figured that your build was ahead by ~100 minerals because you got your hatch at 15, before queen.
I use the 11-overpool, but go for hatch at 15 in order to mimic your build. Since both builds converge on a 15-hatch, the period following it is irrelevant (assuming all else equal). On my first try, spawning south Xel'Naga, here were my results:
The 11 pool comes out 14 seconds faster, and the hatch being delayed by 2 seconds was simply the difference in 1 drone mining wave (you can check the replays yourself). So the 11-overpool, regardless of getting a hatch at 15, or 18, is at worst equivalent in economy but with an earlier pool. Please, let me know if you see some glaring flaw in my logic.
Also, if you go to 6:00 min mark, you'll find I'm behind by 95 minerals. However, if you take a look at my maynarding of workers, I think you'll see why I don't think this is a reasonable sample to draw any conclusion from. Since this build and the 13/15 converge on a 15-hatch, I don't think further comparison is necessary since the difference could only be less than a hatch larva cycle (one build or the other rebuilds their 15th drone <15 seconds early).
Okay, I looked at the replay. Interesting idea to kind of combine the two. I'm a little bit confused by what you're trying to say though. I'm not sure about your logic on how you got to an 11-overpool with a hatch at 15 or 18 is at worst equivalent in economy. I don't see how that follows from anything posted.
I do however agree that the replay isn't quite a reasonable sample to draw conclusions from. You definitely didn't have a good maynard, but this replay only reached 4469 at the 6:00 mark. This is a 160 mineral difference compared to the 13 pool I did, which mined 4630 by that time. I'm not sure if that whole difference can be accounted for by the maynarding. It seems unlikely, and unless I'm missing something It defintely still leaves the possibility that the 13 pool is 100 minerals ahead.
Zerg is all reactionary and has no solid build order. I mean you're not going to follow the BO dogmatically and build drones when your opponent proxies or 6 pools you.
On December 04 2010 01:28 Pehrfect wrote: I stopped playing right before the 6 minute mark in both test games, so i did some extrapolating in the results above. Posting with results at 5:50 instead + Show Spoiler +
It still seems as though both builds are more or less equal (at least when only looking at minerals mined).
I looked at the replays. Thanks a lot for doing that. It's always helpful to have more data. It does appear that in your replays the builds are basically at a stalemate economically. Unfortunately neither was executed perfectly. No big deal though. That's really hard to do. It does however show how important it is for people to test builds themselves. If you can't do the build perfectly you may lose or gain more minerals through variation than the actual build.
I compared your posts to mine and I was about 200 minerals ahead you at the 5:50, 5:55, and 5:57 marks when we both went 13 pool 15 hatch. It's obvious that there is a bit of variance possible in your tests. Like I said before though, it's great to test it for yourself
Indeed, I'm assuming this is because the main base is oversaturated for quite some time, and I should have maynarded more drones. This is the case for both builds though, so I guess the effect is marginal since I end up with about the same amount of drones in both builds.
Btw I redid the 13 pool test and didn't get a drone before the second queen this time. Turns out I ended up with 20 minerals less at 5:50
Haha, I had those same issues when I first started to try testing some builds. I had to start being really alert to make everything at the exact moment it was supposed to be made and quit if I messed up the build. I started getting pretty consistent results after that.
Funny that you mention the drones too. It always seemed like no matter how bad I messed up I still pretty much had the same number drones at any given time. It was the one thing I could depend on
On December 03 2010 06:04 Skrag wrote: This is where I agree with you. The tests were pure 6 minute drone races, and 11pool beat everything except for 14hatch. But you can't just claim this makes the 11pool worthless, without showing examples of how and where it fails. The original post is a foundation, not a build. You're claiming that it would be worse at actual builds, but haven't even attempted to provide any proof. Sorry, but the onus is on you. The OP showed that 11pool can be superior economically to any other pool-first build.
So pick a build, something that you would typically do with a 14pool/16hatch, and I'll be more than happy to run detailed in-game tests, because although I'm intrigued about the possibilities here, I also would like to see how it holds up in real in-game situations where you're doing more than just building workers.
That would help a ton with this duscussion. Just do something reasonably safe with a 14 pool 16 hatch with an extractor trick before OL to keep the comparison as close as possible. Send a drone to scout after your OL finishes. Get a pair of zerglings and an extractor after your queen, research zergling speed at 100 gas, and make some zerglings and a spine crawler when your hatch finishes. Pull drones off gas after 100 for speed. Then note what your defense is at each point in time and your total resources mined. Try to match that level of defense off of an 11 pool and compare the total resources mined. Certain things might not match up--the 11 pool won't have the creep as early for a spine crawler at the nat, so you might want to start it in your main and move it down or compensate with more zerglings. Try to get zergling speed at about the same time in both cases as being 30 seconds late on both speed and your spine crawler is a huge deal in the game.
Any chance you have or can dig up a replay of something you'd like me to try to reproduce as closely as possible? Or want me to just wing it based on what you've said here?
Do whatever strikes your fancy. I'd just like to see a direct comparison between a realistic 11 overpool opening and a realistic 14 pool (with extractor trick) opening. They're similar builds--both are safe against cheese, and they both get drones 1-11 at the exact same time. 14 pool/16 hatch gets drones 12-17 (17 drone becomes a hatch) earlier and a hatch earlier. 11 overpool gets drones 18 and 19 earlier (19th drone becomes a hatch), and gets a queen earlier. In the early going, 14 pool will mine slightly more minerals. The 11 pool will be able to catch up in minerals mined in the mid-20's food because the extra larvae enables more drone production, but if you're pressured, you're not going to be able to crank out those drones anyway. Anyway, this has been my experience with 11 pool. If you run realistic tests and get different results, I'll reconsider.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I just tested your 13/15 replay against an adaptation of the 11/18 (11/15). I figured that your build was ahead by ~100 minerals because you got your hatch at 15, before queen.
I use the 11-overpool, but go for hatch at 15 in order to mimic your build. Since both builds converge on a 15-hatch, the period following it is irrelevant (assuming all else equal). On my first try, spawning south Xel'Naga, here were my results:
The 11 pool comes out 14 seconds faster, and the hatch being delayed by 2 seconds was simply the difference in 1 drone mining wave (you can check the replays yourself). So the 11-overpool, regardless of getting a hatch at 15, or 18, is at worst equivalent in economy but with an earlier pool. Please, let me know if you see some glaring flaw in my logic.
Also, if you go to 6:00 min mark, you'll find I'm behind by 95 minerals. However, if you take a look at my maynarding of workers, I think you'll see why I don't think this is a reasonable sample to draw any conclusion from. Since this build and the 13/15 converge on a 15-hatch, I don't think further comparison is necessary since the difference could only be less than a hatch larva cycle (one build or the other rebuilds their 15th drone <15 seconds early).
Okay, I looked at the replay. Interesting idea to kind of combine the two. I'm a little bit confused by what you're trying to say though. I'm not sure about your logic on how you got to an 11-overpool with a hatch at 15 or 18 is at worst equivalent in economy. I don't see how that follows from anything posted.
I do however agree that the replay isn't quite a reasonable sample to draw conclusions from. You definitely didn't have a good maynard, but this replay only reached 4469 at the 6:00 mark. This is a 160 mineral difference compared to the 13 pool I did, which mined 4630 by that time. I'm not sure if that whole difference can be accounted for by the maynarding. It seems unlikely, and unless I'm missing something It defintely still leaves the possibility that the 13 pool is 100 minerals ahead.
11/15 and 13/15 are great for comparing the economy of the builds because both require these things:
15 drones, 2 overlords, 1 spawning pool, and 1 hatchery EDIT: And 300 minerals!
Because the end goal is identical, we can compare their economies based on how quickly they can accomplish that goal. Therefore, if 11/15 gets a pool faster and a hatch at the same time as a 13/15, while matching the 13/15 in every other respect, then we can, as I did, conclude that the 13/15 should not be significantly worse or better following the production of the 15-hatch. The point is that, sure, 13/15 might get +100 minerals at 6:00 because you were able to mine from your second base sooner, but when both builds get their hatch at the same time, there will be no difference.
Also, just counting the final minerals is not a good approach to comparing minerals mined. Instead of that method, I recorded the remaining minerals for each of the 16 patches and compared their sum to the initial value (1500 per patch X 16 patches). If you use this method you will find that I am 95 minerals behind at 6:00.
On December 04 2010 02:15 nehl wrote: i dont think you can play this vs all races. vs an all in ling att, the fe will die, most likely the main as well. but vs t and p it seems solid. im suprised the 11pool is econ wise effective though. ill check it out...
God, I can't understand how people come up with this stuff. How can you possibly, possibly come to the conclusion that this will die to ling all ins? How? This build gets an 11 pool and more larva than ANY OTHER BUILD. I provided TWO replays of me CRUSHING zergs with ling all ins.
And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices larva or minerals or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
Note: when I began producing lings, we both had exactly 17 drones. I wasn't behind a drone, or half a drone, or whatever... Note: I didn't catch up in drones due to a queen, I was caught up before I started my first inject! Note: At every point from 1:30 until 4:30 when I began making lings, I was AHEAD in minerals mined!
Do you get it? Hello? I am AHEAD IN DRONES by 15 supply. 15 Supply. I am ahead in drones at 11 supply too. Where am I behind? Please, either provide evidence or quit lying on my thread.
On December 04 2010 02:15 nehl wrote: i dont think you can play this vs all races. vs an all in ling att, the fe will die, most likely the main as well. but vs t and p it seems solid. im suprised the 11pool is econ wise effective though. ill check it out...
God, I can't understand what is wrong with people here. How can you possibly, possibly come to the conclusion that this will die to ling all ins? How? HOW? This build gets an 11 pool and more larva than ANY OTHER BUILD. I provided TWO replays of me CRUSHING zergs with ling all ins. WTF?
And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
Note: when I began producing lings, we both had exactly 17 drones. I wasn't behind a drone, or half a drone, or whatever... Note: I didn't catch up in drones due to a queen, I was caught up before I started my first inject! Note: At every point from 1:30 until 4:30 when I began making lings, I was AHEAD in minerals mined!
Do you get it? Hello? I am AHEAD IN DRONES by 15 supply. 15 Supply. I am ahead in drones at 11 supply too. Where am I behind? Please, either prove evidence or quit lying on my thread!
God I'm gonna tear my hair out here...
DNFTT...
I think I remember you saying that less than 2 pages ago :-p
On December 04 2010 02:15 nehl wrote: i dont think you can play this vs all races. vs an all in ling att, the fe will die, most likely the main as well. but vs t and p it seems solid. im suprised the 11pool is econ wise effective though. ill check it out...
God, I can't understand what is wrong with people here. How can you possibly, possibly come to the conclusion that this will die to ling all ins? How? HOW? This build gets an 11 pool and more larva than ANY OTHER BUILD. I provided TWO replays of me CRUSHING zergs with ling all ins. WTF?
And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
Note: when I began producing lings, we both had exactly 17 drones. I wasn't behind a drone, or half a drone, or whatever... Note: I didn't catch up in drones due to a queen, I was caught up before I started my first inject! Note: At every point from 1:30 until 4:30 when I began making lings, I was AHEAD in minerals mined!
Do you get it? Hello? I am AHEAD IN DRONES by 15 supply. 15 Supply. I am ahead in drones at 11 supply too. Where am I behind? Please, either prove evidence or quit lying on my thread!
God I'm gonna tear my hair out here...
lol, at least I'm not claiming that. If you'll die to a ling all in with an 11 pool build then there isn't much else you can do as zerg.
jacobman, I tested your build. Honestly, the build doesn't make much sense. You get an overlord at 43/44 supply, leaving you supply capped for quite some time after a larvae pop. Is this a mistake? It could explain why you are showing a short-run increase in your mining. Anyway, here are my results:
The reason you are showing higher results for the 6 minute mark is because you are delaying the overlord before the 6:00 mark. The results after that are pretty equal, except in drone count which the 11pool leads.
On December 04 2010 02:52 jdseemoreglass wrote: jacobman, I tested your build. Honestly, the build doesn't make much sense. You get an overlord at 43/44 supply, leaving you supply capped for quite some time after a larvae pop. Is this a mistake? It could explain why you are showing a short-run increase in your mining. Anyway, here are my results:
The reason you are showing higher results for the 6 minute mark is because you are delaying the overlord before the 6:00 mark. The results after that are pretty equal, except in drone count which the 11pool leads.
If you sum the minerals left in all the patches and subtract that sum from 24,000 then you will get a true value for minerals mined (it wont matter what anyone built / didn't build).
I think I remember you saying that less than 2 pages ago :-p
Yes, you are right. For every one that leaves another shows up. And there are so many people who will read those posts and think to themselves "huh, that makes sense."
I obviously can't help people having trouble understanding these things. I will stop trying.
On December 04 2010 02:52 jdseemoreglass wrote: jacobman, I tested your build. Honestly, the build doesn't make much sense. You get an overlord at 43/44 supply, leaving you supply capped for quite some time after a larvae pop. Is this a mistake? It could explain why you are showing a short-run increase in your mining. Anyway, here are my results:
The reason you are showing higher results for the 6 minute mark is because you are delaying the overlord before the 6:00 mark. The results after that are pretty equal, except in drone count which the 11pool leads.
If you sum the minerals left in all the patches and subtract that sum from 24,000 then you will get a true value for minerals mined (it wont matter what anyone built / didn't build).
This provides the exact same result + 700 minerals. It makes no difference comparatively.
I think I remember you saying that less than 2 pages ago :-p
Yes, you are right. For every one that leaves another shows up. And there are so many people who will read those posts and think to themselves "huh, that makes sense."
I obviously can't help people having trouble understanding these things. I will stop trying.
Did you happen to notice this post or the replay in the nested quotes? I'm curious about your opinion.
It seems like this is a toss-up with hatch-pool to parry the 2rax as we've seen in the gsl and it comes down to wanting more slow lings and having the wherewithal the pull drones and surround when needed (hatch first) or get faster speed lings out and deal with it that way (gas pool then expand).
As a protoss, I can't remember the last time I saw a zerg go hatch first even if they scout 14gate + gas at close air positions, though I can't say for sure that they were all 11 pools.
I can't really say much about zvz as I haven't watched many and obviously don't have any knowledge through experience
On December 04 2010 02:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
You need to calm down, man. You haven't demonstrated this. You just haven't.
If you want to put an end to this, graph drones and minerals mined of an 11 overpool/18 hatch vs a 14 pool/16 hatch from 2:30 to 5:00. I will be surprised if 11 overpool is less than 100 minerals behind at 5:00.
I wanted to try this build out before commenting in the thread, and I just had a pretty great game with it on Jungle Basin against a Protoss. The early pool delayed his tech without me even needing to build zerglings since he went for a forge before gateway to try and defend against what he expected to be an all in. I really felt ahead the whole time with a really strong economy and great map control (this build sets you up for a strong mutalisk mid-game) allowing me to keep an expansion or two ahead the entire match.
I need to try it more before saying it's definitely my go-to build order, but between your replays and the success I've had so far, I think this is going to be a very strong opening.
I really can't emphasize enough how important the early pool is. It's deceptive enough to start a defensive reaction, and if you can get rid of the scout before throwing down your hatchery then you're golden. Major thanks for posting/optimizing this build!
On December 04 2010 02:52 jdseemoreglass wrote: jacobman, I tested your build. Honestly, the build doesn't make much sense. You get an overlord at 43/44 supply, leaving you supply capped for quite some time after a larvae pop. Is this a mistake? It could explain why you are showing a short-run increase in your mining. Anyway, here are my results:
The reason you are showing higher results for the 6 minute mark is because you are delaying the overlord before the 6:00 mark. The results after that are pretty equal, except in drone count which the 11pool leads.
If you sum the minerals left in all the patches and subtract that sum from 24,000 then you will get a true value for minerals mined (it wont matter what anyone built / didn't build).
This provides the exact same result + 700 minerals. It makes no difference comparatively.
If you just count the resources at 6:00 then you are neglecting the possibility that a player skipped an ovie, or is in the process of building something, etc. The minerals can't deceive you. If a patch says 1256, then 244 minerals have been mined by drones at some point in time. I thought you were all about accuracy :-p this is the most accurate method and has 0 possibility for error (which is increasingly important as the mineral difference in your comparisons approaches 0).
Thanks OP, I'm loving this build... Was using it last night in some 3v3s, it's pretty strong. Lings come out so fast! It is indeed very versatile. I really like it!
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I just tested your 13/15 replay against an adaptation of the 11/18 (11/15). I figured that your build was ahead by ~100 minerals because you got your hatch at 15, before queen.
I use the 11-overpool, but go for hatch at 15 in order to mimic your build. Since both builds converge on a 15-hatch, the period following it is irrelevant (assuming all else equal). On my first try, spawning south Xel'Naga, here were my results:
The 11 pool comes out 14 seconds faster, and the hatch being delayed by 2 seconds was simply the difference in 1 drone mining wave (you can check the replays yourself). So the 11-overpool, regardless of getting a hatch at 15, or 18, is at worst equivalent in economy but with an earlier pool. Please, let me know if you see some glaring flaw in my logic.
Also, if you go to 6:00 min mark, you'll find I'm behind by 95 minerals. However, if you take a look at my maynarding of workers, I think you'll see why I don't think this is a reasonable sample to draw any conclusion from. Since this build and the 13/15 converge on a 15-hatch, I don't think further comparison is necessary since the difference could only be less than a hatch larva cycle (one build or the other rebuilds their 15th drone <15 seconds early).
Okay, I looked at the replay. Interesting idea to kind of combine the two. I'm a little bit confused by what you're trying to say though. I'm not sure about your logic on how you got to an 11-overpool with a hatch at 15 or 18 is at worst equivalent in economy. I don't see how that follows from anything posted.
I do however agree that the replay isn't quite a reasonable sample to draw conclusions from. You definitely didn't have a good maynard, but this replay only reached 4469 at the 6:00 mark. This is a 160 mineral difference compared to the 13 pool I did, which mined 4630 by that time. I'm not sure if that whole difference can be accounted for by the maynarding. It seems unlikely, and unless I'm missing something It defintely still leaves the possibility that the 13 pool is 100 minerals ahead.
11/15 and 13/15 are great for comparing the economy of the builds because both require these things:
15 drones, 2 overlords, 1 spawning pool, and 1 hatchery EDIT: And 300 minerals!
Because the end goal is identical, we can compare their economies based on how quickly they can accomplish that goal. Therefore, if 11/15 gets a pool faster and a hatch at the same time as a 13/15, while matching the 13/15 in every other respect, then we can, as I did, conclude that the 13/15 should not be significantly worse or better following the production of the 15-hatch. The point is that, sure, 13/15 might get +100 minerals at 6:00 because you were able to mine from your second base sooner, but when both builds get their hatch at the same time, there will be no difference.
Also, just counting the final minerals is not a good approach to comparing minerals mined. Instead of that method, I recorded the remaining minerals for each of the 16 patches and compared their sum to the initial value (1500 per patch X 16 patches). If you use this method you will find that I am 95 minerals behind at 6:00.
I see what you're trying to say now. The flaw in the logic that I see though is that you're extending the conclusion for the 11 pool 15 hatch modification to the 11 pool 18 hatch. You just prove that the 11 overpool only put you two seconds behind compared to a 13 pool, which has no bearing on if a 15 hatch or 18 hatch work better. As long as the 2 second difference doesn't have some unforseen consequences that I'm not anticipating, the 11 pool 15 hatch technically should be able to reach pretty much the same economy as the 13 pool version. I would have to test it a few times to make sure I'm not missing something, but it makes sense.
I also noticed you made an extra drone before the first queen. That might account for some of the mineral discrepancy. Also, I think you made a mistake somehow with your minerals mined method. I didn't double check yet, but the only difference between my method and yours that I can think of would be the minerals lost in the extractor trick. I simply take the minerals spent and add the minerals I have to get the total minerals "mined". It's not the exact minerals mined because the game includes 700 minerals worth of what you start with, but the difference between the two replays should still be the same either way, 160.
On December 04 2010 02:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
You need to calm down, man. You haven't demonstrated this. You just haven't.
If you want to put an end to this, graph drones and minerals mined of an 11 overpool/18 hatch vs a 14 pool/16 hatch from 2:30 to 5:00. I will be surprised if 11 overpool is less than 100 minerals behind at 5:00.
No, I am done beating my head against a wall. This will clearly never end. I could waste hours of my life proving with the most meticulous testing and graphing and argumentation, and someone would come out and say "well what about THIS build. Or THAT circumstance. You are behind that!"
Just believe whatever you want to believe. I no longer care in the slightest.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I just tested your 13/15 replay against an adaptation of the 11/18 (11/15). I figured that your build was ahead by ~100 minerals because you got your hatch at 15, before queen.
I use the 11-overpool, but go for hatch at 15 in order to mimic your build. Since both builds converge on a 15-hatch, the period following it is irrelevant (assuming all else equal). On my first try, spawning south Xel'Naga, here were my results:
The 11 pool comes out 14 seconds faster, and the hatch being delayed by 2 seconds was simply the difference in 1 drone mining wave (you can check the replays yourself). So the 11-overpool, regardless of getting a hatch at 15, or 18, is at worst equivalent in economy but with an earlier pool. Please, let me know if you see some glaring flaw in my logic.
Also, if you go to 6:00 min mark, you'll find I'm behind by 95 minerals. However, if you take a look at my maynarding of workers, I think you'll see why I don't think this is a reasonable sample to draw any conclusion from. Since this build and the 13/15 converge on a 15-hatch, I don't think further comparison is necessary since the difference could only be less than a hatch larva cycle (one build or the other rebuilds their 15th drone <15 seconds early).
Okay, I looked at the replay. Interesting idea to kind of combine the two. I'm a little bit confused by what you're trying to say though. I'm not sure about your logic on how you got to an 11-overpool with a hatch at 15 or 18 is at worst equivalent in economy. I don't see how that follows from anything posted.
I do however agree that the replay isn't quite a reasonable sample to draw conclusions from. You definitely didn't have a good maynard, but this replay only reached 4469 at the 6:00 mark. This is a 160 mineral difference compared to the 13 pool I did, which mined 4630 by that time. I'm not sure if that whole difference can be accounted for by the maynarding. It seems unlikely, and unless I'm missing something It defintely still leaves the possibility that the 13 pool is 100 minerals ahead.
11/15 and 13/15 are great for comparing the economy of the builds because both require these things:
15 drones, 2 overlords, 1 spawning pool, and 1 hatchery EDIT: And 300 minerals!
Because the end goal is identical, we can compare their economies based on how quickly they can accomplish that goal. Therefore, if 11/15 gets a pool faster and a hatch at the same time as a 13/15, while matching the 13/15 in every other respect, then we can, as I did, conclude that the 13/15 should not be significantly worse or better following the production of the 15-hatch. The point is that, sure, 13/15 might get +100 minerals at 6:00 because you were able to mine from your second base sooner, but when both builds get their hatch at the same time, there will be no difference.
Also, just counting the final minerals is not a good approach to comparing minerals mined. Instead of that method, I recorded the remaining minerals for each of the 16 patches and compared their sum to the initial value (1500 per patch X 16 patches). If you use this method you will find that I am 95 minerals behind at 6:00.
I see what you're trying to say now. The flaw in the logic that I see though is that you're extending the conclusion for the 11 pool 15 hatch modification to the 11 pool 18 hatch. You just prove that the 11 overpool only put you two seconds behind compared to a 13 pool, which has no bearing on if a 15 pool or 18 pool work better. As long as the 2 second difference doesn't have some unforseen consequences that I'm not anticipating, the 11 pool 15 hatch technically should be able to reach pretty much the same economy as the 13 pool version. I would have to test it a few times to make sure I'm not missing something, but it makes sense.
I also noticed you made an extra drone before the first queen. That might account for some of the mineral discrepancy. Also, I think you made a mistake somehow with your minerals mined method. I didn't double check yet, but the only difference between my method and yours that I can think of would be the minerals lost in the extractor trick. I simply take the minerals spent and add the minerals I have to get the total minerals "mined". It's not the exact minerals mined because the game includes 700 minerals worth of what you start with, but the difference between the two replays should still be the same either way, 160.
I explicitly discarded the results after the hatch goes down, because of poor maynarding and, yes, i got a 15-queen instead of 14-queen.
I don't see what people don't like about my method for minerals mined. It does take a little longer to calculate, but it is 100% accurate. There is no possibility for error.
1500 minerals in a new patch. If at time X there are less than 1500 minerals in that patch, then the player must have mined them. By counting this difference, we don't have to worry if someone did or did not build Y overlord or Z drones as they approached the 6:00 mark. This method won't allow a player to game the system to get a small boost. Although, I suppose you would need to subtract 7 (or 6?) from a player if they use the extractor trick since those are minerals which are mined and lost.
On December 04 2010 02:52 jdseemoreglass wrote: jacobman, I tested your build. Honestly, the build doesn't make much sense. You get an overlord at 43/44 supply, leaving you supply capped for quite some time after a larvae pop. Is this a mistake? It could explain why you are showing a short-run increase in your mining. Anyway, here are my results:
The reason you are showing higher results for the 6 minute mark is because you are delaying the overlord before the 6:00 mark. The results after that are pretty equal, except in drone count which the 11pool leads.
That's a valid point. I'll definitely test out changing the overlord time to be optimal. I think I mentioned that I wasn't sure if that overlord time was exactly right or not. I really doubt that it can make 100 minerals of difference though. I still have the same number of overlords bought and drones out on the field at that point. I'll test it because I'm not sure what the effect would be, but my gut feeling tells me that it's not 100 minerals worth.
I'll also have to take a look at the 7 minute mark to like you said. It seems odd that the 11 pool would catch up during that time since we pretty much reach full saturation at 6:00 ish. The reason it catches up at seven might actually be because of the supply block you mentioned though. While I doubt that it makes much of a difference at 6:00 not being able to make the drones at 52 might affect the 7:00 mark a lot.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I just tested your 13/15 replay against an adaptation of the 11/18 (11/15). I figured that your build was ahead by ~100 minerals because you got your hatch at 15, before queen.
I use the 11-overpool, but go for hatch at 15 in order to mimic your build. Since both builds converge on a 15-hatch, the period following it is irrelevant (assuming all else equal). On my first try, spawning south Xel'Naga, here were my results:
The 11 pool comes out 14 seconds faster, and the hatch being delayed by 2 seconds was simply the difference in 1 drone mining wave (you can check the replays yourself). So the 11-overpool, regardless of getting a hatch at 15, or 18, is at worst equivalent in economy but with an earlier pool. Please, let me know if you see some glaring flaw in my logic.
Also, if you go to 6:00 min mark, you'll find I'm behind by 95 minerals. However, if you take a look at my maynarding of workers, I think you'll see why I don't think this is a reasonable sample to draw any conclusion from. Since this build and the 13/15 converge on a 15-hatch, I don't think further comparison is necessary since the difference could only be less than a hatch larva cycle (one build or the other rebuilds their 15th drone <15 seconds early).
Okay, I looked at the replay. Interesting idea to kind of combine the two. I'm a little bit confused by what you're trying to say though. I'm not sure about your logic on how you got to an 11-overpool with a hatch at 15 or 18 is at worst equivalent in economy. I don't see how that follows from anything posted.
I do however agree that the replay isn't quite a reasonable sample to draw conclusions from. You definitely didn't have a good maynard, but this replay only reached 4469 at the 6:00 mark. This is a 160 mineral difference compared to the 13 pool I did, which mined 4630 by that time. I'm not sure if that whole difference can be accounted for by the maynarding. It seems unlikely, and unless I'm missing something It defintely still leaves the possibility that the 13 pool is 100 minerals ahead.
11/15 and 13/15 are great for comparing the economy of the builds because both require these things:
15 drones, 2 overlords, 1 spawning pool, and 1 hatchery EDIT: And 300 minerals!
Because the end goal is identical, we can compare their economies based on how quickly they can accomplish that goal. Therefore, if 11/15 gets a pool faster and a hatch at the same time as a 13/15, while matching the 13/15 in every other respect, then we can, as I did, conclude that the 13/15 should not be significantly worse or better following the production of the 15-hatch. The point is that, sure, 13/15 might get +100 minerals at 6:00 because you were able to mine from your second base sooner, but when both builds get their hatch at the same time, there will be no difference.
Also, just counting the final minerals is not a good approach to comparing minerals mined. Instead of that method, I recorded the remaining minerals for each of the 16 patches and compared their sum to the initial value (1500 per patch X 16 patches). If you use this method you will find that I am 95 minerals behind at 6:00.
I see what you're trying to say now. The flaw in the logic that I see though is that you're extending the conclusion for the 11 pool 15 hatch modification to the 11 pool 18 hatch. You just prove that the 11 overpool only put you two seconds behind compared to a 13 pool, which has no bearing on if a 15 pool or 18 pool work better. As long as the 2 second difference doesn't have some unforseen consequences that I'm not anticipating, the 11 pool 15 hatch technically should be able to reach pretty much the same economy as the 13 pool version. I would have to test it a few times to make sure I'm not missing something, but it makes sense.
I also noticed you made an extra drone before the first queen. That might account for some of the mineral discrepancy. Also, I think you made a mistake somehow with your minerals mined method. I didn't double check yet, but the only difference between my method and yours that I can think of would be the minerals lost in the extractor trick. I simply take the minerals spent and add the minerals I have to get the total minerals "mined". It's not the exact minerals mined because the game includes 700 minerals worth of what you start with, but the difference between the two replays should still be the same either way, 160.
I explicitly discarded the results after the hatch goes down, because of poor maynarding and, yes, i got a 15-queen instead of 14-queen.
I don't see what people don't like about my method for minerals mined. It does take a little longer to calculate, but it is 100% accurate. There is no possibility for error.
1500 minerals in a new patch. If at time X there are less than 1500 minerals in that patch, then the player must have mined them. By counting this difference, we don't have to worry if someone did or did not build Y overlord or Z drones as they approached the 6:00 mark. This method won't allow a player to game the system to get a small boost. Although, I suppose you would need to subtract 7 (or 6?) from a player if they use the extractor trick since those are minerals which are mined and lost.
What you aren't understanding is that building anything at anytime will not change the difference between methods at all.
Building an overlord = (minerals spent +100) (minerals owned - 100) Not building an overlord = (minerals spent -100) (minerals owned +100)
Ran a quick test. With a scout at about the same time, 11 overpool is about 100 minerals mined behind 14 pool at 4:40 game time. Larvae injection pops earlier for 11 overpool. If you want more early minerals and your hatch to finish earlier, go with 14 pool. If you want more larvae (could be drones, could be units), go with 11 overpool.
On December 04 2010 02:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
You need to calm down, man. You haven't demonstrated this. You just haven't.
If you want to put an end to this, graph drones and minerals mined of an 11 overpool/18 hatch vs a 14 pool/16 hatch from 2:30 to 5:00. I will be surprised if 11 overpool is less than 100 minerals behind at 5:00.
Although I usually love asking him to do things, I think here it's your job. He provided you with a replay of the build. If you really want to show that the 14 pool 16 hatch comes out ahead in some way, you have to make a replay and compare them yourself first. Otherwise you're just guessing.
I believe the thread above is actually what spawned this very in-depth and educational thread.
I personally have been trying a 12 overpool lately, because of some of the counter replies to this thread. Yes the proposed builds are not 100% because they do not account for scouts, harass, gas, tech, etc. That is the exact same reason why I took it upon myself to take these proposed builds and try to refine them more.
What I'm testing right now.
12 overlord (double extractor trick) 12 Pool 12 - Send the 12th drone to scout for me 14 gas (Drops drones to 13) 15 overlord 15 queen 17 ling - To deny scouting/stop earlier 18 overlord 18 hatchery
The overlord at 15 and 18 are to give me a large gap in supply so when the queen pops her first larva I can either A) Mass drone or B) Mass lings if my 12 scout sees danger.
** I also place three drones in gas and do not remove them.** **In case anyone is curious I start teching at the 6:00 mark**
I think the work here everyone is doing is great and I encourage everyone to keep up the good work.
I figured I would toss in my BO in case someone wants to help refine or compare it with other builds.
So far I have only tried this build against one toss that tried a three gated blink stalker rush. I won hands down because I was able to prevent early aggression on my expansion and begin saturating fast. He tried several blink pushes, but I was able to mass lings without an issue.
On December 04 2010 03:29 kcdc wrote: Ran a quick test. With a scout at about the same time, 11 overpool is about 100 minerals mined behind 14 pool at 4:40 game time. Larvae injection pops earlier for 11 overpool. If you want more early minerals and your hatch to finish earlier, go with 14 pool. If you want more larvae (could be drones, could be units), go with 11 overpool.
On December 04 2010 03:17 Zeddicus wrote: Thanks OP, I'm loving this build... Was using it last night in some 3v3s, it's pretty strong. Lings come out so fast! It is indeed very versatile. I really like it!
The 11 pool is pretty powerful in team games. If you cut everything at 13 you can get a queen, 6 lings, and a few seconds later extractor trick to 8 lings. In almost every map, you can safely 18 hatch because you'll have enough scouting information by that point.
I've been doing a lot of rushes with something like:
11 Pool 13 Queen 15-18 Ling 18 Extractor Trick Ling 19 Overlord 19 Gas @100 Gas: Ling Speed pull drones off Gas
From there you can pump Lings constantly and you'll slowly build a surplus. When you get 300, expand and pump drones through to your next inject and put guys back on gas. You can go for a pretty decent muta/ling timing push with 8 mutas and about 34 - 40 speedlings without any resource trading.
I play with a T partner, so combining that ling push with 2 rax before orbital is a lot of fun. It's a rush, but it's not so all-in that we lose if it fails ( though we probably need to do some damage ). I reckon if you abused mules properly ( we don't ), you could do a lot more with this build.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I just tested your 13/15 replay against an adaptation of the 11/18 (11/15). I figured that your build was ahead by ~100 minerals because you got your hatch at 15, before queen.
I use the 11-overpool, but go for hatch at 15 in order to mimic your build. Since both builds converge on a 15-hatch, the period following it is irrelevant (assuming all else equal). On my first try, spawning south Xel'Naga, here were my results:
The 11 pool comes out 14 seconds faster, and the hatch being delayed by 2 seconds was simply the difference in 1 drone mining wave (you can check the replays yourself). So the 11-overpool, regardless of getting a hatch at 15, or 18, is at worst equivalent in economy but with an earlier pool. Please, let me know if you see some glaring flaw in my logic.
Also, if you go to 6:00 min mark, you'll find I'm behind by 95 minerals. However, if you take a look at my maynarding of workers, I think you'll see why I don't think this is a reasonable sample to draw any conclusion from. Since this build and the 13/15 converge on a 15-hatch, I don't think further comparison is necessary since the difference could only be less than a hatch larva cycle (one build or the other rebuilds their 15th drone <15 seconds early).
Okay, I looked at the replay. Interesting idea to kind of combine the two. I'm a little bit confused by what you're trying to say though. I'm not sure about your logic on how you got to an 11-overpool with a hatch at 15 or 18 is at worst equivalent in economy. I don't see how that follows from anything posted.
I do however agree that the replay isn't quite a reasonable sample to draw conclusions from. You definitely didn't have a good maynard, but this replay only reached 4469 at the 6:00 mark. This is a 160 mineral difference compared to the 13 pool I did, which mined 4630 by that time. I'm not sure if that whole difference can be accounted for by the maynarding. It seems unlikely, and unless I'm missing something It defintely still leaves the possibility that the 13 pool is 100 minerals ahead.
11/15 and 13/15 are great for comparing the economy of the builds because both require these things:
15 drones, 2 overlords, 1 spawning pool, and 1 hatchery EDIT: And 300 minerals!
Because the end goal is identical, we can compare their economies based on how quickly they can accomplish that goal. Therefore, if 11/15 gets a pool faster and a hatch at the same time as a 13/15, while matching the 13/15 in every other respect, then we can, as I did, conclude that the 13/15 should not be significantly worse or better following the production of the 15-hatch. The point is that, sure, 13/15 might get +100 minerals at 6:00 because you were able to mine from your second base sooner, but when both builds get their hatch at the same time, there will be no difference.
Also, just counting the final minerals is not a good approach to comparing minerals mined. Instead of that method, I recorded the remaining minerals for each of the 16 patches and compared their sum to the initial value (1500 per patch X 16 patches). If you use this method you will find that I am 95 minerals behind at 6:00.
I see what you're trying to say now. The flaw in the logic that I see though is that you're extending the conclusion for the 11 pool 15 hatch modification to the 11 pool 18 hatch. You just prove that the 11 overpool only put you two seconds behind compared to a 13 pool, which has no bearing on if a 15 pool or 18 pool work better. As long as the 2 second difference doesn't have some unforseen consequences that I'm not anticipating, the 11 pool 15 hatch technically should be able to reach pretty much the same economy as the 13 pool version. I would have to test it a few times to make sure I'm not missing something, but it makes sense.
I also noticed you made an extra drone before the first queen. That might account for some of the mineral discrepancy. Also, I think you made a mistake somehow with your minerals mined method. I didn't double check yet, but the only difference between my method and yours that I can think of would be the minerals lost in the extractor trick. I simply take the minerals spent and add the minerals I have to get the total minerals "mined". It's not the exact minerals mined because the game includes 700 minerals worth of what you start with, but the difference between the two replays should still be the same either way, 160.
I explicitly discarded the results after the hatch goes down, because of poor maynarding and, yes, i got a 15-queen instead of 14-queen.
I don't see what people don't like about my method for minerals mined. It does take a little longer to calculate, but it is 100% accurate. There is no possibility for error.
1500 minerals in a new patch. If at time X there are less than 1500 minerals in that patch, then the player must have mined them. By counting this difference, we don't have to worry if someone did or did not build Y overlord or Z drones as they approached the 6:00 mark. This method won't allow a player to game the system to get a small boost. Although, I suppose you would need to subtract 7 (or 6?) from a player if they use the extractor trick since those are minerals which are mined and lost.
Your mineral method is just more work. Like jd basically said, the other method has no room for error either. There is a difference between the two methods though. You count minerals when they are taken from the patch. We count them when they reach the hatch.
I think the second way is slightly better since you can't actually use the minerals until they get to the hatch. Also keep in mind that each patch is a different amount of time away from the hatch so even if you got five minerals at one patch, it may be worth less than 5 at another since the other patch might get to the hatch earlier. These are all small differences though. Either way is fine with me though.
On December 04 2010 02:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
You need to calm down, man. You haven't demonstrated this. You just haven't.
If you want to put an end to this, graph drones and minerals mined of an 11 overpool/18 hatch vs a 14 pool/16 hatch from 2:30 to 5:00. I will be surprised if 11 overpool is less than 100 minerals behind at 5:00.
No, I am done beating my head against a wall. This will clearly never end. I could waste hours of my life proving with the most meticulous testing and graphing and argumentation, and someone would come out and say "well what about THIS build. Or THAT circumstance. You are behind that!"
Just believe whatever you want to believe. I no longer care in the slightest.
I just did the tests. People keep arguing with you because you're missing something important. 11 overpool 18 hatch gets drones 12-17 later than 14 pool 16 hatch. That manifests itself in minerals mined. Your tests are good, but they're not showing critical early data. Your earliest data point is 4:30 when the extra drones from the 11 overpool larva injection are already kicking in. If you go back to 2:30, you'll see another story. 11 overpool sacrificies ~100 early minerals compared to a 14 pool to get an earlier queen. That might be a good trade (if you turn the extra larvae from the earlier queen into drones, you'll make those 100 minerals back), but it's not as clear-cut as you're presenting it. There is a real trade-off.
On December 04 2010 01:13 Ryhn wrote: Why so hostile Jacob?
I understand you're tired, but there's no need to get snarky with me. I read the first few pages, then skimmed to the end of the thread because I was excited.
We have too many conflicting results, so we need more data. I'm not ready to claim either build to be conclusively 'more right' for an early pool - my nudge to you was a request for further testing, I did not mean to offend.
It's okay, I was just a little annoyed at the moment because I spent a lot of time testing this and people seemed to just pretend I wasn't presenting any possible contradictory data. Sorry if I was hostile.
I just tested your 13/15 replay against an adaptation of the 11/18 (11/15). I figured that your build was ahead by ~100 minerals because you got your hatch at 15, before queen.
I use the 11-overpool, but go for hatch at 15 in order to mimic your build. Since both builds converge on a 15-hatch, the period following it is irrelevant (assuming all else equal). On my first try, spawning south Xel'Naga, here were my results:
The 11 pool comes out 14 seconds faster, and the hatch being delayed by 2 seconds was simply the difference in 1 drone mining wave (you can check the replays yourself). So the 11-overpool, regardless of getting a hatch at 15, or 18, is at worst equivalent in economy but with an earlier pool. Please, let me know if you see some glaring flaw in my logic.
Also, if you go to 6:00 min mark, you'll find I'm behind by 95 minerals. However, if you take a look at my maynarding of workers, I think you'll see why I don't think this is a reasonable sample to draw any conclusion from. Since this build and the 13/15 converge on a 15-hatch, I don't think further comparison is necessary since the difference could only be less than a hatch larva cycle (one build or the other rebuilds their 15th drone <15 seconds early).
Okay, I looked at the replay. Interesting idea to kind of combine the two. I'm a little bit confused by what you're trying to say though. I'm not sure about your logic on how you got to an 11-overpool with a hatch at 15 or 18 is at worst equivalent in economy. I don't see how that follows from anything posted.
I do however agree that the replay isn't quite a reasonable sample to draw conclusions from. You definitely didn't have a good maynard, but this replay only reached 4469 at the 6:00 mark. This is a 160 mineral difference compared to the 13 pool I did, which mined 4630 by that time. I'm not sure if that whole difference can be accounted for by the maynarding. It seems unlikely, and unless I'm missing something It defintely still leaves the possibility that the 13 pool is 100 minerals ahead.
11/15 and 13/15 are great for comparing the economy of the builds because both require these things:
15 drones, 2 overlords, 1 spawning pool, and 1 hatchery EDIT: And 300 minerals!
Because the end goal is identical, we can compare their economies based on how quickly they can accomplish that goal. Therefore, if 11/15 gets a pool faster and a hatch at the same time as a 13/15, while matching the 13/15 in every other respect, then we can, as I did, conclude that the 13/15 should not be significantly worse or better following the production of the 15-hatch. The point is that, sure, 13/15 might get +100 minerals at 6:00 because you were able to mine from your second base sooner, but when both builds get their hatch at the same time, there will be no difference.
Also, just counting the final minerals is not a good approach to comparing minerals mined. Instead of that method, I recorded the remaining minerals for each of the 16 patches and compared their sum to the initial value (1500 per patch X 16 patches). If you use this method you will find that I am 95 minerals behind at 6:00.
I see what you're trying to say now. The flaw in the logic that I see though is that you're extending the conclusion for the 11 pool 15 hatch modification to the 11 pool 18 hatch. You just prove that the 11 overpool only put you two seconds behind compared to a 13 pool, which has no bearing on if a 15 pool or 18 pool work better. As long as the 2 second difference doesn't have some unforseen consequences that I'm not anticipating, the 11 pool 15 hatch technically should be able to reach pretty much the same economy as the 13 pool version. I would have to test it a few times to make sure I'm not missing something, but it makes sense.
I also noticed you made an extra drone before the first queen. That might account for some of the mineral discrepancy. Also, I think you made a mistake somehow with your minerals mined method. I didn't double check yet, but the only difference between my method and yours that I can think of would be the minerals lost in the extractor trick. I simply take the minerals spent and add the minerals I have to get the total minerals "mined". It's not the exact minerals mined because the game includes 700 minerals worth of what you start with, but the difference between the two replays should still be the same either way, 160.
I explicitly discarded the results after the hatch goes down, because of poor maynarding and, yes, i got a 15-queen instead of 14-queen.
I don't see what people don't like about my method for minerals mined. It does take a little longer to calculate, but it is 100% accurate. There is no possibility for error.
1500 minerals in a new patch. If at time X there are less than 1500 minerals in that patch, then the player must have mined them. By counting this difference, we don't have to worry if someone did or did not build Y overlord or Z drones as they approached the 6:00 mark. This method won't allow a player to game the system to get a small boost. Although, I suppose you would need to subtract 7 (or 6?) from a player if they use the extractor trick since those are minerals which are mined and lost.
What you aren't understanding is that building anything at anytime will not change the difference between methods at all.
Building an overlord = (minerals spent +100) (minerals owned - 100) Not building an overlord = (minerals spent -100) (minerals owned +100)
My bad, I thought you guys were just counting the minerals in the bank at 6:00. If your method accounts for the value of all units / structures then it would end up being equivalent.
On December 04 2010 02:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
You need to calm down, man. You haven't demonstrated this. You just haven't.
If you want to put an end to this, graph drones and minerals mined of an 11 overpool/18 hatch vs a 14 pool/16 hatch from 2:30 to 5:00. I will be surprised if 11 overpool is less than 100 minerals behind at 5:00.
No, I am done beating my head against a wall. This will clearly never end. I could waste hours of my life proving with the most meticulous testing and graphing and argumentation, and someone would come out and say "well what about THIS build. Or THAT circumstance. You are behind that!"
Just believe whatever you want to believe. I no longer care in the slightest.
I just did the tests. People keep arguing with you because you're missing something important. 11 overpool 18 hatch gets drones 12-17 later than 14 pool 16 hatch. That manifests itself in minerals mined. Your tests are good, but they're not showing critical early data. Your earliest data point is 4:30 when the extra drones from the 11 overpool larva injection are already kicking in. If you go back to 2:30, you'll see another story. 11 overpool sacrificies ~100 early minerals compared to a 14 pool to get an earlier queen. That might be a good trade (if you turn the extra larvae from the earlier queen into drones, you'll make those 100 minerals back), but it's not as clear-cut as you're presenting it. There is a real trade-off.
Who has the build order for 14 pool? One that doesn't leave you supply capped before 7:00?
I think I'm going to try a test of the 13 pool with an overlord that doesn't supply block before 7. I don't know what the timing is yet, but i'll figure it out. I think that should bring the 7 minute mark back into line where the 13/15 is still 100 minerals ahead of the 11/18
Also, if you read Obsolescence's comments, he made a really good point. I can probably change to 11/15 with the same results. It only puts the hatch back by two seconds and has a slightly earlier pool. I'm going to try it now.
Can't wait for everyone to agree on what's actually being tested here...
It's quite an assumption to think we can switch to 11Pool/15Hatch with no resulting loss in economy. Can't wait to hear the results for this one either...
Guys, please, just give me a solid build order to follow. That's all I ask.
On December 04 2010 04:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: Can't wait for everyone to agree on what's actually being tested here...
It's quite an assumption to think we can switch to 11Pool/15Hatch with no resulting loss in economy. Can't wait to hear the results for this one either...
lol, well currently I'm trying to address your comment earlier that my being supply blocked might scew the results at 6 minutes.
I failed a test once, which allowed me to figure out the more optimal overlord times for the 13 pool 15 hatch
9 ovie 13 pool 15 hatch 14 queen 17 overlord 21 queen (move first queen to second base after inject) 23 overlord 23/24 mayard 3 drones 31 overlord 37 overlord 44 overlord
This should get you to six minutes without any issues. After six minutes isn't really important either because once you reach 52 supply, both bases are saturated to the max, and technically you shouldn't even be producing drones anymore, so extra larva don't affect income anymore.
I'm going to try and get a good replay with the new overlord timing to dispel the idea that the mistimed overlord near the end resulted in 100 extra minerals in my first replay. I still have to pay for the overlord, it was just slow to pop.
On December 04 2010 04:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: Can't wait for everyone to agree on what's actually being tested here...
It's quite an assumption to think we can switch to 11Pool/15Hatch with no resulting loss in economy. Can't wait to hear the results for this one either...
Guys, please, just give me a solid build order to follow. That's all I ask.
Also I'll try the 11 pool idea if I'm up for it later. In theory it makes sense that it shouldn't have any noticeable economy losses since it reaches the state of 1 hatch 1 pool 1 ovie and 14 drones only two seconds behind the 13 pool version. Who knows what random effects the two seconds might have on the econ, but I can't think of any big ones off the top of my head.
Since I don't have any previous data on it yet though, I'm going to hold off until I settle the 13 pool 15 hatch vs 11 pool 18 hatch issue
On December 04 2010 04:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: Can't wait for everyone to agree on what's actually being tested here...
It's quite an assumption to think we can switch to 11Pool/15Hatch with no resulting loss in economy. Can't wait to hear the results for this one either...
lol, well currently I'm trying to address your comment earlier that my being supply blocked might scew the results at 6 minutes.
I failed a test once, which allowed me to figure out the more optimal overlord times for the 13 pool 15 hatch
9 ovie 13 pool 15 hatch 14 queen 17 overlord 21 queen (move first queen to second base after inject) 23 overlord 23/24 mayard 3 drones 31 overlord 37 overlord 44 overlord
This should get you to six minutes without any issues. After six minutes isn't really important either because once you reach 52 supply, both bases are saturated to the max, and technically you shouldn't even be producing drones anymore, so extra larva don't affect income anymore.
I'm going to try and get a good replay with the new overlord timing to dispel the idea that the mistimed overlord near the end resulted in 100 extra minerals in my first replay. I still have to pay for the overlord, it was just slow to pop.
I am testing to 7 minutes to provide a longer frame to account for drone pops etc. Please provide the last overlord or two...
Also, I want to know if kcdc is content with me testing this build, or if he is gonna demand I do a whole new test for his as well.
On December 04 2010 04:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: Can't wait for everyone to agree on what's actually being tested here...
It's quite an assumption to think we can switch to 11Pool/15Hatch with no resulting loss in economy. Can't wait to hear the results for this one either...
Guys, please, just give me a solid build order to follow. That's all I ask.
Also I'll try the 11 pool idea if I'm up for it later. In theory it makes sense that it shouldn't have any noticeable economy losses since it reaches the state of 1 hatch 1 pool 1 ovie and 14 drones only two seconds behind the 13 pool version. Who knows what random effects the two seconds might have on the econ, but I can't think of any big ones off the top of my head.
Since I don't have any previous data on it yet though, I'm going to hold off until I settle the 13 pool 15 hatch vs 11 pool 18 hatch issue
I can't even understand this... You are getting a hatch at 15? Then you get another two drones and a queen at 16? Won't we be waiting longer to afford the queen and everything else following the hatch?
On December 04 2010 04:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: Can't wait for everyone to agree on what's actually being tested here...
It's quite an assumption to think we can switch to 11Pool/15Hatch with no resulting loss in economy. Can't wait to hear the results for this one either...
lol, well currently I'm trying to address your comment earlier that my being supply blocked might scew the results at 6 minutes.
I failed a test once, which allowed me to figure out the more optimal overlord times for the 13 pool 15 hatch
9 ovie 13 pool 15 hatch 14 queen 17 overlord 21 queen (move first queen to second base after inject) 23 overlord 23/24 mayard 3 drones 31 overlord 37 overlord 44 overlord
This should get you to six minutes without any issues. After six minutes isn't really important either because once you reach 52 supply, both bases are saturated to the max, and technically you shouldn't even be producing drones anymore, so extra larva don't affect income anymore.
I'm going to try and get a good replay with the new overlord timing to dispel the idea that the mistimed overlord near the end resulted in 100 extra minerals in my first replay. I still have to pay for the overlord, it was just slow to pop.
I am testing to 7 minutes to provide a longer frame to account for drone pops etc. Please provide the last overlord or two...
Also, I want to know if kcdc is content with me testing this build, or if he is gonna demand I do a whole new test for his as well.
He might demand a test. I'm perfectly willing to test mine. You really don't need to. The only time I care if you test mine also is if you're trying to say my results were off for some reason. If you don't mind I'll test the 13 pool 15 hatch to 7. I can give you the replay after. Then you're free to test 14 hatch 16 pool if kcdc demands it
On December 04 2010 04:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: Can't wait for everyone to agree on what's actually being tested here...
It's quite an assumption to think we can switch to 11Pool/15Hatch with no resulting loss in economy. Can't wait to hear the results for this one either...
Guys, please, just give me a solid build order to follow. That's all I ask.
Also I'll try the 11 pool idea if I'm up for it later. In theory it makes sense that it shouldn't have any noticeable economy losses since it reaches the state of 1 hatch 1 pool 1 ovie and 14 drones only two seconds behind the 13 pool version. Who knows what random effects the two seconds might have on the econ, but I can't think of any big ones off the top of my head.
Since I don't have any previous data on it yet though, I'm going to hold off until I settle the 13 pool 15 hatch vs 11 pool 18 hatch issue
I can't even understand this... You are getting a hatch at 15? Then you get another two drones and a queen at 16? Won't we be waiting longer to afford the queen and everything else following the hatch?
No, when I test it I would get the queen at 14 just like the 13 hatch version. The only difference is in how I get the early pool. Everything after the hatch would be the same. Supposedly I hear that getting to the hatch through the overpool method only delays the whole process by two seconds. I'm not going to test this idea until later though. It's not as important as hashing out the difference between hatch at 15 or hatch at 18
I play a lot of multiplayer games and after being cheesed so much by Zerg or random Zerg players I've had to resort to the 10 pool speedling build for the last week or so, but I have to say after trying this build out I was amazed at the flexibility and just ease of transition into whatever the situation calls for.
Yes, you still need to scout those randoms who can only 6 pool but at least you're much better prepared. So if they do fast expand you've shown that this build doesn't put you behind. I like that! Thanks for your replays and timings to prove the validity of another great build.
Wish I didn't have to wade through pages of angry posts...., but I've tried it and I like it.
If you're going to test the early game econs, please do a 14 pool. You can do a 13 too if you want, but 14 is more standard.
As for a BO, I do queen at completion of pool and OL after queen. I believe you sit at 18/18 for a bit while waiting on you OL, but you don't get to 3 larvae, so none are wasted. If I'm wrong and it does get to 3 larvae, just do an extractor trick to use a larva before it hits 3.
Oh and please make a new thread or something when you guys finally have a build order done for me? Thx
edit: Sorry bad attempt of being funny. But cant all this discussion be put into the Evolution Chamber, utilizing the way-points to actually prove something?
There is 0 point in testing up till 7 minutes.... The delay on drones 12-17 gives a pretty huge setback in minerals mined between a 13 pool and a 11 overpool build. THAT ALONE is enough to say a 11 overpool build is just much worse in economy then a 13 pool build. In a realistic game you CAN'T make up the mineral setback by droning hard because you are forced to make some lings and scout! I can't believe how ignorant most of this thread is....
What good is it to sacrifice larvae only to get more larvae later?? That is exactly what this build is doing.. You cut larvae around 11 pop to get a earlier queen which gets you back more larvae at 17 pop, however anyone with brains can see that just getting a 13 pool and instead of getting more larvae just USING your extra minerals on stuff like gas, expanding, lings, roach warren or whatever is better in a scenario where you combine economy with actual army.
Doing this 7 minute vs the CPU tests or whatever is completely irrelevant as EACH real game has some action and thus deviation from any build going on before 5 minutes anyway....
11 pool is worse economically then 13 pool because you are roughly 100 minerals behind when the pool finishes at which point you have other expenses then droning up anyway...
This build is like comparing a terran 12 CC build to a 15 CC build. Sure at some point in time 12 CC might actually catch up to 15 CC because of more scv production but anyone with brains can see that cutting workers to get more worker production earlier is silly when you are not nearly at saturation at all... which is EXACTLY what the 11 pool is doing from a economical point of view.
11 pool is only good if you have a) the intention or at least want the option to get very early lings or b) think the response from your opponent to seeing your 11 pool does them more damage then a 11 pool does to you. Option b is actually quite a viable reason to 11 pool but once again only works against people that would actually adjust against it, for example in ZvP a 11 pool is quite good occasionally as it can force P into inefficient builds, for example they might be inclined to even get a forge and cannon really quick. A 11 pool could also be more efficient for dealing with a pylon block then a 13 pool because you could get a few lings earlier, if someone ran a test on that it would actually be useful. 11 pool could also be nice in ZvZ as it quite safe against some rush builds but not too far behind against eco builds, in fact against some eco builds it can come out even if they overreact to the sight of the early pool. In this scenario you have to weigh out the advantage of not having to scout as fast (possible not at all if your overlord reaches them in time) and them being forced into early lings because of seeing a 11 pool.
Overall I think it's an ok build for ZvZ and ZvP on 2 player maps as you can potentially safe some money by not needing to scout (as the ovie and early couple lings can do that instead) and they might be put off their regular timings (for example you can punish a pylon block with early lings and might even get in their base with lings against a 9 pylon -> scout + 14 gate). In ZvT however it's horrible imo as T isn't really forced to deviate from their build by scouting 11 pool (they got their wall-in anyways) and you will only behind economically as you are forced to make some lings against T anyway. The build being crap against T also makes it a liability against random.
On December 04 2010 04:40 Markwerf wrote: There is 0 point in testing up till 7 minutes.... The delay on drones 12-17 gives a pretty huge setback in minerals mined between a 13 pool and a 11 overpool build. THAT ALONE is enough to say a 11 overpool build is just much worse in economy then a 13 pool build. In a realistic game you CAN'T make up the mineral setback by droning hard because you are forced to make some lings and scout! I can't believe how ignorant most of this thread is....
The numerous replays and tests in this thread currently refute that. At most, it seems like 13 & 11 pool are roughly equal in terms of economy. Being as the entire basis of your argument revolves around this assertion, it'd be helpful to provide some replays or some collateral to prove your point.
Furthermore, Starcraft is often about making small sacrifices now to set yourself up to have more capacity later on. The only point you'd have with regard to sacrificing larva now for more later on is if you couldn't actually spend the larva you had - e.g. do a 16 hatch, 15 pool double queen build - you can't really spend the larva if you inject both hatcheries [ed]right when the Queens spawn[/ed].
On December 04 2010 04:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: Can't wait for everyone to agree on what's actually being tested here...
It's quite an assumption to think we can switch to 11Pool/15Hatch with no resulting loss in economy. Can't wait to hear the results for this one either...
Guys, please, just give me a solid build order to follow. That's all I ask.
Also I'll try the 11 pool idea if I'm up for it later. In theory it makes sense that it shouldn't have any noticeable economy losses since it reaches the state of 1 hatch 1 pool 1 ovie and 14 drones only two seconds behind the 13 pool version. Who knows what random effects the two seconds might have on the econ, but I can't think of any big ones off the top of my head.
Since I don't have any previous data on it yet though, I'm going to hold off until I settle the 13 pool 15 hatch vs 11 pool 18 hatch issue
I can't even understand this... You are getting a hatch at 15? Then you get another two drones and a queen at 16? Won't we be waiting longer to afford the queen and everything else following the hatch?
No, when I test it I would get the queen at 14 just like the 13 hatch version. The only difference is in how I get the early pool. Everything after the hatch would be the same. Supposedly I hear that getting to the hatch through the overpool method only delays the whole process by two seconds. I'm not going to test this idea until later though. It's not as important as hashing out the difference between hatch at 15 or hatch at 18
Supposedly it only delays the hatch by 2 seconds? I provided a replay that shows it happening -- a replay I believe you already watched. And you don't have to cling to those 2 seconds as if it were straw in the ocean :p A drone takes ~5 seconds to mine minerals, which means that those 2 seconds are literally the difference in drone pathing (when 13/15 puts down the hatch at 2:37, 11/15 is at 284-289 minerals).
On December 04 2010 04:40 Markwerf wrote: There is 0 point in testing up till 7 minutes.... The delay on drones 12-17 gives a pretty huge setback in minerals mined between a 13 pool and a 11 overpool build. THAT ALONE is enough to say a 11 overpool build is just much worse in economy then a 13 pool build. In a realistic game you CAN'T make up the mineral setback by droning hard because you are forced to make some lings and scout! I can't believe how ignorant most of this thread is....
What good is it to sacrifice larvae only to get more larvae later?? That is exactly what this build is doing.. You cut larvae around 11 pop to get a earlier queen which gets you back more larvae at 17 pop, however anyone with brains can see that just getting a 13 pool and instead of getting more larvae just USING your extra minerals on stuff like gas, expanding, lings, roach warren or whatever is better in a scenario where you combine economy with actual army.
You require clarification on what it means to sacrifice larva. The hatch naturally produces 1 larva per 15 in game seconds. This means that in order to waste larva your hatch must sit on 3 larva for 15 seconds. Only if this occurs have you wasted larva. 11/18 does not waste larva. If you believe it does, then clearly you are theory-babbling and haven't actually watched the replays. The hatch only sits at 3 larva for 6 seconds right as you put the pool down. Six, for the record, is less than 15. This means that although your subsequent larva are now all delayed by 6 in game seconds, you have not wasted any larva. If you disagree, feel free to put more effort into supplying data instead of bad-mouthing those of us who have.
@JD You might want to add that to the OP -- that this build does not waste larva because it only sits on 3 larva for 6 seconds, and as far as I know you can't build anything with 6/15ths of a larva.
I believe the thread above is actually what spawned this very in-depth and educational thread.
I personally have been trying a 12 overpool lately, because of some of the counter replies to this thread. Yes the proposed builds are not 100% because they do not account for scouts, harass, gas, tech, etc. That is the exact same reason why I took it upon myself to take these proposed builds and try to refine them more.
What I'm testing right now.
12 overlord (double extractor trick) 12 Pool 12 - Send the 12th drone to scout for me 14 gas (Drops drones to 13) 15 overlord 15 queen 17 ling - To deny scouting/stop earlier 18 overlord 18 hatchery
The overlord at 15 and 18 are to give me a large gap in supply so when the queen pops her first larva I can either A) Mass drone or B) Mass lings if my 12 scout sees danger.
** I also place three drones in gas and do not remove them.** **In case anyone is curious I start teching at the 6:00 mark**
I think the work here everyone is doing is great and I encourage everyone to keep up the good work.
I figured I would toss in my BO in case someone wants to help refine or compare it with other builds.
So far I have only tried this build against one toss that tried a three gated blink stalker rush. I won hands down because I was able to prevent early aggression on my expansion and begin saturating fast. He tried several blink pushes, but I was able to mass lings without an issue.
I've been doing 12pool in ZvT for about 3 months now and 9 overlord is superior to double extractor trick -> overlord. The way you can tell is by watching your larvae timings, with a regular 9 overlord you will always have time to make a drone after the pool without getting capped at 3 larvae, while with double extractor trick you sometimes(depending on how well you do the trick) will manage to just make that drone, but more often than not, you will be larva capped for about 2 seconds or so.
Thanks to the above information and the fact that with a 9 OL, your 12th drone will begin mining before you start the pool(meaning you are exactly equal in income) 9 overlord gets the minerals for 12 drones, an overlord and a pool before double extractor trick does. Which means that at the point of starting the pool, you are exactly equal in economy but 9OL gets to that point earlier.
Not to mention the fact that there's just no way to mess up 9OL. ^^
On December 04 2010 02:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: And people, STOP claiming this build is behind or sacrifices or anything else early on, because I have demonstrated this to be false. Can you not read the OP? Here, let me help you.
Note: when I began producing lings, we both had exactly 17 drones. I wasn't behind a drone, or half a drone, or whatever... Note: I didn't catch up in drones due to a queen, I was caught up before I started my first inject! Note: At every point from 1:30 until 4:30 when I began making lings, I was AHEAD in minerals mined!
Chill out ffs.
In that replay, you were ahead of a 15hatch, that is true, for two reasons: first, because he sent an early scout. Second, because he saved larvae for lings as soon as his pool was done. Had he not done either of those things, you would not have been ahead in either drones or minerals mined.
You were ahead, but it's not because 11OP is ahead of 15 hatch, it's because of the choices the 15hatch player made in the game. So no, you haven't demonstrated the build isn't behind, you've demonstrated that it's not behind a hatch-first player who doesn't try to maximize their economy like you were.
Of course, hatch-first without an early scout is very risky, and it's perfectly reasonable for him to want to save larvae for lings after seeing an 11pool.
On December 04 2010 05:06 Obsolescence wrote: You require clarification on what it means to sacrifice larva. The hatch naturally produces 1 larva per 15 in game seconds. This means that in order to waste larva your hatch must sit on 3 larva for 15 seconds. Only if this occurs have you wasted larva. 11/18 does not waste larva. If you believe it does, then clearly you are theory-babbling and haven't actually watched the replays. The hatch only sits at 3 larva for 6 seconds right as you put the pool down. Six, for the record, is less than 15. This means that although your subsequent larva are now all delayed by 6 in game seconds, you have not wasted any larva. If you disagree, feel free to put more effort into supplying data instead of bad-mouthing those of us who have..
This is wrong, every time you reach 3 larva, you are saccing larva. The 15 second timer completely stops as soon as you reach 3 or more larva(although there is something weird going on with injects, I haven't figured it out yet but it seems to be either separate or at least differentiate between "regular" and "injected" larva but as far as regular larva before you even have a queen, what I describe in this post is correct). Which means every second you spend on 3 larva is a second that all future larva will be delayed. This most definitely happens if you 11 overpool and the very earliest pool you can make without wasting larva is a 12pool(with 9OL as I state in the above post).
Edit: Read your post again and realized you are actually aware that this is the case. How in the world can you not agree that "holding up the queue" is not a waste of larva? Every single natural larva for the rest of the game(assuming macro does not slip) will be delayed for 6 seconds. FYI, a drone mines 5 minerals in roughly 7,5 seconds which would mean that every single drone you make, will mine 5 minerals less than if larva were not delayed. Sure, assuming you can still make something out of all your future larva, that's not really an issue, but at the point where you place the pool, you are definitely wasting larvae until you can "catch up"(which a queen will mind you). You still have to accept that you are wasting larvae until you can actually remedy the loss.
Edit2: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to disprove the validity of the build, just trying to clear up what people mean by "wasting larva".
I did some testing of the extractor trick on my own a while back and found it's benefit to minerals to be rather trivial.
So my question is this. Is the 11 Ovie important for some other timing reasons? Would a 10ovie 11 pool work nearly just as well without the extra drone dance? Maybe 11 ovie prevents you sitting at 3 larva at your hatch and so doesn't buy you much minerals but an extra larva. I would do the dance for an extra larva, not for 6 minerals or whatever it works out to.
I'm really looking forward to trying this build out tonight.
On December 04 2010 05:20 Alsn wrote: This is wrong, every time you reach 3 larva, you are saccing larva. The 15 second timer completely stops as soon as you reach 3 or more larva(although there is something weird going on with injects, I haven't figured it out yet but it seems to be either separate or at least differentiate between "regular" and "injected" larva but as far as regular larva before you even have a queen, what I describe in this post is correct). Which means every second you spend on 3 larva is a second that all future larva will be delayed. This most definitely happens if you 11 overpool and the very earliest pool you can make without wasting larva is a 12pool(with 9OL as I state in the above post).
This is correct, and obsolescence is the one theory-babbling about larva waste, clearly not understanding how it works. As soon as you hit 3 larvae, you're wasting larva spawn time.
I *believe* the way it works internally is this:
There's a counter that goes up to 15. When the counter reaches 15, a larva is spawned, and the counter is reset. If there are ever 3 or more larvae at the hatchery, the timer is paused. So, when the third larva spawns, the timer is reset to zero and paused there, because there are 3 larvae. When larvae from an inject come in, the timer will pause at whatever it was at, until there are less than 3 larvae.
So the inject does pause the timer, but doesn't reset it. That seems to be how it works, anyway.
On December 04 2010 05:06 Obsolescence wrote: You require clarification on what it means to sacrifice larva. The hatch naturally produces 1 larva per 15 in game seconds. This means that in order to waste larva your hatch must sit on 3 larva for 15 seconds. Only if this occurs have you wasted larva. 11/18 does not waste larva. If you believe it does, then clearly you are theory-babbling and haven't actually watched the replays. The hatch only sits at 3 larva for 6 seconds right as you put the pool down. Six, for the record, is less than 15. This means that although your subsequent larva are now all delayed by 6 in game seconds, you have not wasted any larva. If you disagree, feel free to put more effort into supplying data instead of bad-mouthing those of us who have..
This is wrong, every time you reach 3 larva, you are saccing larva. The 15 second timer completely stops as soon as you reach 3 or more larva(although there is something weird going on with injects, I haven't figured it out yet but it seems to be either separate or at least differentiate between "regular" and "injected" larva but as far as regular larva before you even have a queen, what I describe in this post is correct). Which means every second you spend on 3 larva is a second that all future larva will be delayed. This most definitely happens if you 11 overpool and the very earliest pool you can make without wasting larva is a 12pool(with 9OL as I state in the above post).
I know the section you quoted was a lengthy 10 sentences, but I think you might have might have missed sentence #9 where I clearly stated your point:
On December 04 2010 05:06 Obsolescence wrote: This means that although your subsequent larva are now all delayed by 6 in game seconds, you have not wasted any larva.
In order to waste a larva, you must remain on 3+ larva for 15 in game seconds. Yes, while you sit on 3+ larva the timer has reset and remains frozen until you have less than 3 larva. This means that if you sit on 3 larva for 15 seconds a cycle should have completed which would have produced another larva. If you don't sit on 3 larva for 15 seconds, then you have only delayed your future larva, but you are not lacking a larva.
On December 04 2010 05:20 Alsn wrote: This is wrong, every time you reach 3 larva, you are saccing larva. The 15 second timer completely stops as soon as you reach 3 or more larva(although there is something weird going on with injects, I haven't figured it out yet but it seems to be either separate or at least differentiate between "regular" and "injected" larva but as far as regular larva before you even have a queen, what I describe in this post is correct). Which means every second you spend on 3 larva is a second that all future larva will be delayed. This most definitely happens if you 11 overpool and the very earliest pool you can make without wasting larva is a 12pool(with 9OL as I state in the above post).
This is correct. As soon as you hit 3 larvae, you're wasting larva spawn time.
I *believe* the way it works internally is this:
There's a counter that goes up to 15. When the counter reaches 15, a larva is spawned, and the counter is reset. If there are ever 3 or more larvae at the hatchery, the timer is paused. So, when the third larva spawns, the timer is reset to zero and paused there, because there are 3 larvae. When larvae from an inject come in, the timer will pause at whatever it was at, until there are less than 3 larvae.
So the inject does pause the timer, but doesn't reset it. That seems to be how it works, anyway.
Consider NASCAR. Two cars on the track, car #2 is behind car #1 by 4 seconds. It would be incorrect to state that car #2 is a lap behind car #1. Even if car #1 had just crossed the line with car #2 trailing, until car #1 laps car #2 the difference between them is 4 seconds - not a lap.
On December 04 2010 05:32 Obsolescence wrote: In order to waste a larva, you must remain on 3+ larva for 15 in game seconds. Yes, while you sit on 3+ larva the timer has reset and remains frozen until you have less than 3 larva.
Uh, I think you have a very strange definition of "waste", that seems to only care if an entire larva is wasted.
If a larva is delayed by 10 seconds because you sat at 3 larva, then you have wasted 10 seconds of larvae spawn time, and therefore delayed all of your larva.
To say nothing was actually wasted until you lose a full 15 seconds is ridiculous, because whatever you make out of that larva will come 10 seconds later, which is very relevant.
And your nascar example just confirms that you have a very skewed perception of larva waste. Yes, car 2 is not a full lap behind car 1, but it would be just as incorrect to say that car 2 is not losing the race. Waste happens anytime you lose spawn time, not just when you're a full "lap" behind. 10 seconds is 10 seconds.
On December 03 2010 19:09 Geo.Rion wrote: i just canot believe this is the most economic pool first opening. It seems weak, i have to try but i have strong doubts.
ok, i watched a rep, the 4 gate. What level is this? Silver? The guy has energy maxed out on nexus before the warpgate finishes, he used like 3 chronoboosts in the entire game, 1 on the warp tech, 2 on the probes, could be 1. Also he had like 40 apm. He attacked at ~8:10, just FYI the 4 gates i'm dealing with come around 6th minute mark, had even at 5:30, 9th minutes is even late for 4 gate blinkstalker attack. So i have no idea if this build actually suffers from early agression so far. Gonna watch some more, really not impressed so far
The 6 minute 4-gate attacks are typically the 1-gas zealot/stalker only attacks. This player wanted some sentries, mostly to range against roaches. The timing of the 4 gate being slower doesn't mean the attack is weaker. Whether or not the play or micro was great I don't know, but normally with pool into hatch builds you can hold off the 4-gate with 2-5 spines, roaches, lings, and stalling for hydra tech. with an earlier pool, I imagine this would even be easier to deal with as your queen's out even earlier, with even more larvae to use (compared to say a 14 pool/15 hatch).
On a map like metalopolis. This isn't happening. 6 minutes is awfully fast you don't have time to get both roaches and spine crawlers. The 4 gate with 1 gas is far more powerful, but far more "allin" since with sentries you can defend an expo against mass lings.
The OP tried to tell me that 11 pool is ahead in minerals over a 15 hatch 15 pool up to 4:30. To me this indicates some gross error because delaying drones to get an 11 pool, and losing a drone for 30 or so more seconds for the faster pool means it must necessarily be behind in minerals mined. Now it seems its not that big, there's no way it should be ahead until the first inject drones come, unless the 15 hat 15 pool is saving a lot of larva.
The reason the pros haven't found this is because they don't spend their day theorycrafting, they just play the game and hone their skills.
Yes I know Zealot/Stalker 4-gates are stronger in close positions. Which further shows the strength of this build in that the delayed hatch leaves you with the option of not going hatch at all and switching to one base roach, which is quite strong against the early 4-gate all-in. If you 15 pool upon scouting close positions on metalopolis, you're stuck with a later pool, later queen, and less larvae when the attack comes. Whereas if you 11 overpool and end up scouting cross positions you can transition into an 18 hatch with (seemingly) similar economies to a 15 hatch, OR scouting close positions throw down gas and roach warren and prepare to one base roach instead of fast expanding. You can't do that if you're going for a 15 hatch build, and then stumble upon close positions, and scramble to throw up a 15 pool.
On December 04 2010 05:06 Obsolescence wrote: You require clarification on what it means to sacrifice larva. The hatch naturally produces 1 larva per 15 in game seconds. This means that in order to waste larva your hatch must sit on 3 larva for 15 seconds. Only if this occurs have you wasted larva. 11/18 does not waste larva. If you believe it does, then clearly you are theory-babbling and haven't actually watched the replays. The hatch only sits at 3 larva for 6 seconds right as you put the pool down. Six, for the record, is less than 15. This means that although your subsequent larva are now all delayed by 6 in game seconds, you have not wasted any larva. If you disagree, feel free to put more effort into supplying data instead of bad-mouthing those of us who have..
This is wrong, every time you reach 3 larva, you are saccing larva. The 15 second timer completely stops as soon as you reach 3 or more larva(although there is something weird going on with injects, I haven't figured it out yet but it seems to be either separate or at least differentiate between "regular" and "injected" larva but as far as regular larva before you even have a queen, what I describe in this post is correct). Which means every second you spend on 3 larva is a second that all future larva will be delayed. This most definitely happens if you 11 overpool and the very earliest pool you can make without wasting larva is a 12pool(with 9OL as I state in the above post).
I know the section you quoted was a lengthy 10 sentences, but I think you might have might have missed sentence #9 where I clearly stated your point:
On December 04 2010 05:06 Obsolescence wrote: This means that although your subsequent larva are now all delayed by 6 in game seconds, you have not wasted any larva.
In order to waste a larva, you must remain on 3+ larva for 15 in game seconds. Yes, while you sit on 3+ larva the timer has reset and remains frozen until you have less than 3 larva. This means that if you sit on 3 larva for 15 seconds a cycle should have completed which would have produced another larva. If you don't sit on 3 larva for 15 seconds, then you have only delayed your future larva, but you are not lacking a larva.
On December 04 2010 05:20 Alsn wrote: This is wrong, every time you reach 3 larva, you are saccing larva. The 15 second timer completely stops as soon as you reach 3 or more larva(although there is something weird going on with injects, I haven't figured it out yet but it seems to be either separate or at least differentiate between "regular" and "injected" larva but as far as regular larva before you even have a queen, what I describe in this post is correct). Which means every second you spend on 3 larva is a second that all future larva will be delayed. This most definitely happens if you 11 overpool and the very earliest pool you can make without wasting larva is a 12pool(with 9OL as I state in the above post).
This is correct. As soon as you hit 3 larvae, you're wasting larva spawn time.
I *believe* the way it works internally is this:
There's a counter that goes up to 15. When the counter reaches 15, a larva is spawned, and the counter is reset. If there are ever 3 or more larvae at the hatchery, the timer is paused. So, when the third larva spawns, the timer is reset to zero and paused there, because there are 3 larvae. When larvae from an inject come in, the timer will pause at whatever it was at, until there are less than 3 larvae.
So the inject does pause the timer, but doesn't reset it. That seems to be how it works, anyway.
Consider NASCAR. Two cars on the track, car #2 is behind car #1 by 4 seconds. It would be incorrect to state that car #2 is a lap behind car #1. Even if car #1 had just crossed the line with car #2 trailing, until car #1 laps car #2 the difference between them is 4 seconds - not a lap.
I tend to agree with the other guy. It makes more sense to say you're losing larva production as soon as you are at three. Using your argument we could say that if you sit at three larva for thirty seconds you're not actually losing any larva. It's just that your larva cycle has been delayed by thirty seconds.
If you say, but after 15 seconds you would have had an extra larva at that point. I can point out the same thing for six seconds, which is less than 15. From 15 - 21 seconds you're one larva behind. Then from 30 - 36 seconds you're one larva behind again, so you really have lost 6/15ths of a larva. Also, I believe it's 14 seconds per larva, but that's inconsequential.
On December 04 2010 04:40 Markwerf wrote: There is 0 point in testing up till 7 minutes.... The delay on drones 12-17 gives a pretty huge setback in minerals mined between a 13 pool and a 11 overpool build. THAT ALONE is enough to say a 11 overpool build is just much worse in economy then a 13 pool build.
But getting drones 10 and 11 much earlier make the setback a lot less than you're making it out to be. Apparently enough to where an 18 hatch turns it into possibly the 2nd greatest economic build. Some testing is still going on, but I want to throw this in there in case your definitive language makes easily influenced people actually believe you have the final opinion.
lol my current build is the complete 180 degree strategy... i fool people with a 16 pool, then a 16 double extractor, which early on I only use to get important metabolic boost and Lair tech faster. I use my 6th sense when it comes to cheese - I scout with a drone then with an overlord poke and have usually a pair of lings for towers and to deny scouting. I'm pretty sure this is a good build too, however I think I might need someone of higher caliber to play-test/confirm it.
On December 04 2010 04:32 Wordpad wrote: Am I the only one enjoying the drama?
Oh and please make a new thread or something when you guys finally have a build order done for me? Thx
edit: Sorry bad attempt of being funny. But cant all this discussion be put into the Evolution Chamber, utilizing the way-points to actually prove something?
If we were using the Evo Chamber then this thread and build wouldn't exist to begin with. And there will never be a build order done. Everyone will play it in different ways. I'm sorry this is inconvenient for those who don't have the game sense to adapt properly.
Ok, so I've tried many times now, even playing the entire game on slower speed, and I can't get 11p/18h to beat 13p/15h in minerals at the 6 minute mark, despite being able to beat the counts in the OP replays by quite a bit by being absolutely perfect on slower. 11P does have 4 more completed drones, and 1 more total supply, but my best run comes short of jacobman's count by 31 minerals, at 4599 compared to 4630.
And I'm guessing that if I did his 13 pool build playing on slowest, and working out the absolute best overlord times (which are slightly off in the OP btw, most of them are too early), I could probably beat his 4630 count by a decent amount.
I suspect the main reason it's ahead mineralwise despite being behind on drones is because just before the 18hatch finishes, the main is oversaturated, and the 15hatch probably prevents early oversaturation.
The 11P is ahead slightly up to the 5:30 mark (2669vs2610@4:00, 3019vs2965@4:30, and 3414vs3390@5:00), but since we already know it *shouldn't* be ahead, at least not at the 4 minute mark, I'm more than happy to chalk that up to the fact that I was playing near-perfectly (slower gives you TONS of time to do shit) in my replay and he wasn't in his, and he even admits to not working out ideal overlord times.
On December 04 2010 06:39 Skrag wrote: Ok, so I've tried many times now, even playing the entire game on slower speed, and I can't get 11p/18h to beat 13p/15h in minerals at the 6 minute mark, despite being able to beat the counts in the OP replays by quite a bit by being absolutely perfect on slower. 11P does have 4 more completed drones, and 1 more total supply, but my best run comes short of jacobman's count by 31 minerals, at 4599 compared to 4630.
And I'm guessing that if I did his 13 pool build playing on slowest, and working out the absolute best overlord times (which are slightly off in the OP btw, most of them are too early), I could probably beat his 4630 count by a decent amount.
I suspect the main reason it's ahead mineralwise despite being behind on drones is because just before the 18hatch finishes, the main is oversaturated, and the 15hatch probably prevents early oversaturation.
The 11P is ahead slightly up to the 5:30 mark (2669vs2610@4:00, 3019vs2965@4:30, and 3414vs3390@5:00), but since we already know it *shouldn't* be ahead, at least not at the 4 minute mark, I'm more than happy to chalk that up to the fact that I was playing near-perfectly (slower gives you TONS of time to do shit) in my replay and he wasn't in his, and he even admits to not working out ideal overlord times.
Lol I just tried to do it and ended up doing 13 pool 15 hatch... It works beautifully I get supply capped at around 15 min with no pressure. I think what I am doing is not that efficient. Must get the Evolution Chamber working for me now lol.
Edit Got the Lomilar file to work...Let's see if rushing 60 drones gives around 11p/18h
---Final Output--- At time: 6:38 Minerals: 563 Gas: 0 Supply: 66/70 Larva: 4 Drones: 60 Overlords: 8 Queens: 3 Bases: 1 Spawning Pools: 1 That's for 15h/17p... not sure if it is fully optimized yet
i didnt read through all the comments, ill do it 2morow, but i played the build on ladder few hours ago, a few times, and i find it good, alho i went 14 gas 13 pool vs tosses, so i kinda miss my early speedlings, but i like the build. Great job ppl!!
Could you post the replay of the 11 pool test you did? You said you had four extra drones? That's huge. My tests always showed about 42 for the 13/15 and 43 for the 11/18.
I've got news too. I did another replay. Here is is.
This one fixes the issue that jd brought up about my last overlord in the replay being a few seconds late. When I used the correct overlord timing, the number for me did drop to 4570, BUT I went back to the old replay to try and figure out why this is.
What I ended up noticing was that at the time of the last correctly timed overlord I did (43 was actually correct, it was in a group of 5 so it could actually be considered lower if you really wanted), which was at 5:29, I was already 45 minerals behind my old best attempt in my new attempt. 4570+45 = 4615, which is about the original number. This means the difference in this build isn't because of the change in the overlord timing. I was just less efficient somewhere. I'm starting to think the 4620ish is about the maximum that the 13 Pool 15 Hatch can get if played absolutely perfectly.
Since Skrag here said that the best he could do was 4599, I'm about ready to say that the builds are so close economically that it doesn't matter, with a probable extractors worth you could eek out of the 13 pool. The differences obviously are really the hatch timing and larva. If Skrag can provide a replay of him getting 4 extra drones, that would be huge, but for now I have a 1 larva advantage to the 11 pool. The trade off is maybe an extractors worth of minerals and about a 20 seconds quicker hatch. Personally I'm ignoring the 13 second slower pool for the 13 pool because I don't think you'll ever actually need those 13 seconds.
The only last thing I'm going to check is what happens to the 15 hatch build when an 11 overpool is used instead of a 13 pool.
I've lost track. Are we now thinking that 13 pool 15 hatch is preferred?
I made a few attempts at 11 pool 15 hatch variations, but they weren't nearly as clean as the 11 pool 18 hatch. It was quite a bit easier to fit gas into the 11/18 for me. I'm interesting in seeing how the 11/15 works out for other people.
We need a summary again.
11 pool / 18 hatch: 11 pool / 15 hatch: 13 pool / 15 hatch:
Ok, I finally broke down and tested these builds thoroughly. I did them exactly as my post and exactly as jacobman's post said to do them. I took them at every 30 second interval from :30 to 6:00... I used the replay bar the get EXACTLY at the beginning of the second so there could be no disputes about fractions of a second. They are in the same position on the same map. I played them both on slow speed with precise timing. Is there anything missing? Have I covered all my bases? Of course not. Trolls are experts at splitting hairs...
Anyway, here are the results, along with 2 replays so you can look them up yourself and don't have to take my word for it. I know I will get posts claiming an inject or something is .275 seconds delayed, but hopefully we can discard such stupidity.
This data confirms what I have been saying all along. This build is simply better economically. At no point am I behind, unless you count the meaningless 6 minerals before the 3 minute mark.
If you are an honest and reasonable person, I would appreciate it if you would go back and correct any posts claiming this build is behind economically to pool-first, so that others don't read this thread and make assumptions that your stated facts are actually facts and not claims, and therefore reach unfair conclusions regarding this build.
But I suspect I will instead get a barrage of complaints regarding the test or methods or build chosen or what have you, because pointless arguments on the internet never end.
I requested build orders to test, and jacobman was the only one who provided. Therefore don't complain if you want to see 14 Pool or anything else compared, because I won't do it. Have a nice day.
On December 04 2010 07:18 Cheshyr wrote: I've lost track. Are we now thinking that 13 pool 15 hatch is preferred?
I made a few attempts at 11 pool 15 hatch variations, but they weren't nearly as clean as the 11 pool 18 hatch. It was quite a bit easier to fit gas into the 11/18 for me. I'm interesting in seeing how the 11/15 works out for other people.
We need a summary again.
11 pool / 18 hatch: 11 pool / 15 hatch: 13 pool / 15 hatch:
From what I've read:
11/15 and 13/15 are all but identical in terms of economy, except that 11/15 gets the pool ~14 seconds faster. Assuming this is not refuted it points to the idea that 11/18 is at least as economical as 13/18. I believe the main concern at present is how 11/18 compares to 14/16 or some of the more standard 14-16/14-18 builds.
The 11 pools have 6 seconds of larva waste. The 13 pool has ~2-3 seconds of larva waste. The 14+ pool has no larva waste.
Thank you jdseemoreglass for the countless hours you have put into this thread. I know all the criticisms and trolls suck, but I hope that does not discourage you from doing great work like this in the future.
With your evidence and replays I have started trying to adapt for an 11/18 opening.
On December 04 2010 07:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: This data confirms what I have been saying all along. This build is simply better economically. At no point am I behind, unless you count the meaningless 6 minerals before the 3 minute mark.
If you are an honest and reasonable person, I would appreciate it if you would go back and correct any posts claiming this build is behind economically to pool-first, so that others don't read this thread and make assumptions that your stated facts are actually facts and not claims, and therefore reach unfair conclusions regarding this build.
But I suspect I will instead get a barrage of complaints regarding the test or methods or build chosen or what have you, because pointless arguments on the internet never end.
I requested build orders to test, and jacobman was the only one who provided. Therefore don't complain if you want to see 14 Pool or anything else compared, because I won't do it. Have a nice day.
Great post! Thank you for the hard work you put into this analysis. Please, don't get too down, developing something like this is a journey not a destination so to speak. There will almost surely be more work to be done or more tests to run no matter how many have been run before. This may put to rest the issue of 13/15 vs 11/18, but perhaps there are other factors to consider.
Regardless of whether or not this is the new standard, you've obviously stumbled upon a viable build of tangible value, which is not something that many on this forum can claim.
Thanks for the hard work. My only complaint is that I had to work, and didn't have time to put together a build for you to compare with the two above.
I'm working on a way to build gas into it, and i'll post it once I feel it's competent, but I think that's just icing on what you've already done. For better or worse, you challenged the status quo and sparked enough interest to start a rather large fight. Hang in there, come back in a couple days, and let's see where the dust has settled. Great job.
On December 04 2010 07:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: Ok, I finally broke down and tested these builds thoroughly. I did them exactly as my post and exactly as jacobman's post said to do them. I took them at every 30 second interval from :30 to 6:00... I used the replay bar the get EXACTLY at the beginning of the second so there could be no disputes about fractions of a second. They are in the same position on the same map. I played them both on slow speed with precise timing. Is there anything missing? Have I covered all my bases? Of course not. Trolls are experts at splitting hairs...
Anyway, here are the results, along with 2 replays so you can look them up yourself and don't have to take my word for it. I know I will get posts claiming an inject or something is .275 seconds delayed, but hopefully we can discard such stupidity.
This data confirms what I have been saying all along. This build is simply better economically. At no point am I behind, unless you count the meaningless 6 minerals before the 3 minute mark.
If you are an honest and reasonable person, I would appreciate it if you would go back and correct any posts claiming this build is behind economically to pool-first, so that others don't read this thread and make assumptions that your stated facts are actually facts and not claims, and therefore reach unfair conclusions regarding this build.
But I suspect I will instead get a barrage of complaints regarding the test or methods or build chosen or what have you, because pointless arguments on the internet never end.
I requested build orders to test, and jacobman was the only one who provided. Therefore don't complain if you want to see 14 Pool or anything else compared, because I won't do it. Have a nice day.
This is exactly what I was hoping for. I think you did a good job with the 11 pool 18 hatch build this time around. The 13 pool 15 hatch is a little slower than the one that I posted right before that, but that's okay because you improved the 11 pool 18 hatch enough that it's on par with pretty much any of the replays I could do, at most 20 minerals behind. The real kicker though is that you managed to scrounge up a ton more drones in your new replay, which is really good and in my opinion more than makes up for any 20 or 30 mineral difference, so with your new replay the 11/18 does look better than 13/15 due to the extra larva.
Just a heads up, I discovered an odd anomaly while testing these builds. There was a fraction of a second before the hatchery went down where the minerals were subtracted from the player but not added to resources spent. So at precisely the 3:00 mark in the 11Pool build, you will find the number in replay to be off by exactly 300 minerals. Beware of this in the future.
I don't understand the graphs; all I can tell is that 11p/18h is similar to 13p/15h and from that I would definitely do 11p/18h. Having that pool out earlier is better for transition and response.
On December 04 2010 07:55 IzieBoy wrote: I don't understand the graphs; all I can tell is that 11p/18h is similar to 13p/15h and from that I would definitely do 11p/18h. Having that pool out earlier is better for transition and response.
Are you sure there is more you should be understanding from the graphs?
On December 04 2010 07:55 IzieBoy wrote: I don't understand the graphs; all I can tell is that 11p/18h is similar to 13p/15h and from that I would definitely do 11p/18h. Having that pool out earlier is better for transition and response.
On December 04 2010 03:36 kcdc wrote: I just did the tests. People keep arguing with you because you're missing something important. 11 overpool 18 hatch gets drones 12-17 later than 14 pool 16 hatch. That manifests itself in minerals mined.
This sounded a little off to me, so I went and recorded finish times of the first 19 drones. As I thought, there are a few in the middle that 11pool produces faster. Specifically the 15th and 16th drones. No big deal though. It gets those drones faster, but not much faster, and they only manage to do a very small amount of catchup from already being behind.
Taking the difference between the number of drones each build had in specific time ranges, you can figure out how many worker seconds ahead or behind they are. Drones mine about about .7 minerals per second, so mutliplying workerseconds by 0.7 gives you approximately how many minerals ahead or behind they are.
Starting at 53 seconds in, until 1:35, 11pool is about 35 workerseconds ahead on average. From then until 2:45, 14pool is about 50 workerseconds (or 35-ish minerals) ahead, from 2:45-3:25, 14pool is about 80 workerseconds ahead (57 minerals), and from that point until the 19th drone finishes at pretty close to the 4 minute mark, 14pool is ahead 115 workerseconds (80 minerals).
So yeah, not quite 100 minerals, but close enough.
Your tests are good, but they're not showing critical early data. Your earliest data point is 4:30 when the extra drones from the 11 overpool larva injection are already kicking in. If you go back to 2:30, you'll see another story. 11 overpool sacrificies ~100 early minerals compared to a 14 pool to get an earlier queen. That might be a good trade (if you turn the extra larvae from the earlier queen into drones, you'll make those 100 minerals back), but it's not as clear-cut as you're presenting it. There is a real trade-off.
But, that timeframe covers the first 4 minutes, and during that time, there's really not that much that you can be doing differently without delaying the hatch, so starting data points at 4:30 seems pretty reasonable to me. Yeah, it's good to know that 11pool is behind 80-ish minerals in the third minute, but there's not really much a 14pool could be doing with the extra minerals, so it doesn't really matter all that much. Both builds have enough money to spend their larvae, and have the same ability to add gas at comparable times without crippling the economy.
And if 11pool does pull ahead during the 4th minute, which is where you're going to actually be implementing most of the guts of your opening, then I don't really think 80 minerals that you can't do much differently with anyway is a bad tradeoff for extra minerals later.
EDIT: I wasn't paying attention to the queen inject while I was recording larva finish times, but it turns out that the first larva inject completes at just over 4 minutes, so the 11pool will start pulling ahead very quickly after the 19th drone, if you are able to make drones with those larvae.
Also, were my overlord timings in the OP actually early for the 13 pool? I thought I had nailed them the best you could possibly do in that replay.
No clue. I didn't even try to figure out optimal overlord timings for anything other than the 11pool, and for that one 20ol is better than 18ol, and 30ol is better than 28ol. I'm not 100% sure 30 is the *best* timing for that OL, and I didn't even bother with the one on 36, but the earlier ones make a fairly big difference, because those 2 shifts represents 4 drones coming out 15 seconds faster than they would have otherwise, which can make as much as a 40-50 mineral difference.
I won't dispute that 11 pool is only a bit behind 13 pool (which should be 14 pool) in the short run and gets ahead in the long run IF YOU CAN DRONE UP BLINDLY. However you can't.. I don't even get why you even bother to post data beyond the 4:00 min mark, its completely irrelevant as you are NEVER playing a game without lings up to that point anyway.
The thing is you didn't scout with a drone or got lings at all. Sure in THAT case it's easy to catch up with the earlier queen inject. In realistic scenario's however you ARE behind in minerals mined early on (and more then the 6 minerals in my testing) and you will not catch up those roughly 50 minerals later because you can't drone up freely. The limiting factor to zerg play is in fact not larvae but minerals mined, which a proper build will be in front with.
As for a decent build that is better economically:
9OL 14 pool 17 hatch 16 queen 18 OL 18 gas 17 pair of lings
This build is about 30-50 minerals up to yours after just quick testing. Also note that your build is done with exact precision in your game, performing it slightly worse will have a much more notable inpact (because your idle hatchery time depends on it) whereas performing a build slightly suboptimal with a 14 pool hardly matters. The fact 11 pool takes off vs 14 pool after 3:30 is completely irrelevant once again, you won't convert all larvae into drones anyway most of the time.
THe 11 pool build is only decent if you are sure you don't need to scout AND your opponent is likely to be thrown off by it, ie. does a suboptimal build against it because of it.
It's just retarded that after 20 pages of complaints about proper testing methods you still do a crappy test (ie, no gas, no scouting etc.) and then complain about the trolls while you're just stupid for doing silly tests.
The fact that 11 pool has a larvae waste while not being that significantly faster on the queen is more then enough evidence for a decent player to know it's a worse build economically. That you need days of testing and then even miss that conclusion is just extremely silly.
With the recent trend of everybody trying to 'KILL THE ZERG' before 10 min mark, I actually find this 11 overpool 18 hatch build really safe, even more so against protoss (you just cannot cannon rush this build) than terran (not sure how this fares with really early 2rax marine scv all-ins, since those tend to be the hardest thing to defend against these days, judging by recent pro games). Another thing I love about this build, the opponent does not know if I'm about to put early pressure on him (i sometimes even fake gas when his scout comes in, just for the kicks ) or not and hence needs to prepare. If he still does not prepare, I can always decide to punish him if he's going for some high eco build or powering too much too early.
Props to the OP, this really helped me stay alive in the early game and helped me get some decisions to make early on - before (hatch first builds) it used to be all defend until I overpower his attack, then build some economy and only THEN I got to make any decisions whether to attack and with what!
I'm joining the "chill out" post here, and want to thank Jd too for his time and analysis. Yes it's theoriecraft, but i would never do this, and still, this BO seems to be the one i'll use more and more.
On December 04 2010 08:16 Markwerf wrote: Ugh @ jdseemoreglass.
I won't dispute that 11 pool is only a bit behind 13 pool (which should be 14 pool) in the short run and gets ahead in the long run IF YOU CAN DRONE UP BLINDLY. However you can't.. I don't even get why you even bother to post data beyond the 4:00 min mark, its completely irrelevant as you are NEVER playing a game without lings up to that point anyway.
The thing is you didn't scout with a drone or got lings at all. Sure in THAT case it's easy to catch up with the earlier queen inject. In realistic scenario's however you ARE behind in minerals mined early on (and more then the 6 minerals in my testing) and you will not catch up those roughly 50 minerals later because you can't drone up freely. The limiting factor to zerg play is in fact not larvae but minerals mined, which a proper build will be in front with.
As for a decent build that is better economically:
9OL 14 pool 17 hatch 16 queen 18 OL 18 gas 17 pair of lings
This build is about 30-50 minerals up to yours after just quick testing. Also note that your build is done with exact precision in your game, performing it slightly worse will have a much more notable inpact (because your idle hatchery time depends on it) whereas performing a build slightly suboptimal with a 14 pool hardly matters. The fact 11 pool takes off vs 14 pool after 3:30 is completely irrelevant once again, you won't convert all larvae into drones anyway most of the time.
THe 11 pool build is only decent if you are sure you don't need to scout AND your opponent is likely to be thrown off by it, ie. does a suboptimal build against it because of it.
It's just retarded that after 20 pages of complaints about proper testing methods you still do a crappy test (ie, no gas, no scouting etc.) and then complain about the trolls while you're just stupid for doing silly tests.
The fact that 11 pool has a larvae waste while not being that significantly faster on the queen is more then enough evidence for a decent player to know it's a worse build economically. That you need days of testing and then even miss that conclusion is just extremely silly.
I'm not getting involved in this one, but I will say that the 13 Pool was the first pool first build I really tried to get timings down for. This thread is mainly for builds with quick pool times, so I was looking for an alternative that also had quick pool times.
I never really put any time into the 14 or 15 pool openings since the pool is set back more time wise. They probably are a tiny bit more economical, but if you want the earlier pool, that's not as important. This builds biggest advantage anyways seems to be extra larva, and depending on what you want to do, those can be important
On December 04 2010 08:16 Markwerf wrote: As for a decent build that is better economically:
9OL 14 pool 17 hatch 16 queen 18 OL 18 gas 17 pair of lings
Test this is the other topic plz
Testing responsibilities belong to you. It's only fair that if you think a build order will work better in some manner, you supply a replay showing that it outperforms the replays that have been given for jd's build. If you can do that then it's back on jd to either give you a replay that performs even better or decide that the differences are still worth it.
On December 04 2010 08:16 Markwerf wrote: Ugh @ jdseemoreglass.
I won't dispute that 11 pool is only a bit behind 13 pool (which should be 14 pool) in the short run and gets ahead in the long run IF YOU CAN DRONE UP BLINDLY. However you can't.. I don't even get why you even bother to post data beyond the 4:00 min mark, its completely irrelevant as you are NEVER playing a game without lings up to that point anyway.
Whatever build you're wanting to compare the 11pool against is going to need those same lings, gas, whatever. 11pool can do all the same things at approximately the same times, and both builds will take the exact same economic hit.
On December 04 2010 08:16 Markwerf wrote:It's just retarded that after 20 pages of complaints about proper testing methods you still do a crappy test (ie, no gas, no scouting etc.) and then complain about the trolls while you're just stupid for doing silly tests.
The fact that 11 pool has a larvae waste while not being that significantly faster on the queen is more then enough evidence for a decent player to know it's a worse build economically. That you need days of testing and then even miss that conclusion is just extremely silly.
Ugh @ Markwerf
I'm glad you finally posted such a thorough analysis. I, like you, consider this problem solved. Thank you for showing us all the error of our ways. You've convinced me, and everyone else here, that not only are you right, but you are good. Since this issue is now completely solved thanks to your expert contribution, I guess nobody needs to post in this thread ever again. You're now free to go to other threads and solve their problems with equal grace and authority. Don't worry if this thread doesn't disappear right away from the top of the strategy forum, we'll just be deliberating to determine what award we're going to present you with. No peeking!
you'll be happy to know that I've convinced my friend that there might be a chance this build could be the build against protoss. It's all the extra larva. Good job optimizing the build up to its potential.
Hey guys, I know many of you are testing this on the ladder. Feel free to post your replays for the rest of us to enjoy. Losses are fine too
It would be nice to speed up the learning curve on how to respond to specific plays, etc... For example, knowing that this build can guaranteed kill a hatch-first zerg is helpful. What about forge-FE toss? And whatever else you come across.
On December 04 2010 09:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hey guys, I know many of you are testing this on the ladder. Feel free to post your replays for the rest of us to enjoy. Losses are fine too
It would be nice to speed up the learning curve on how to respond to specific plays, etc... For example, knowing that this build can guaranteed kill a hatch-first zerg is helpful. What about forge-FE toss? And whatever else you come across.
I'm currently using this exclusively in all MUs on the ladder (~2200-2300 diamond). As I get worthy replays I'll definitely post them. I'm sure I'll get a couple before the night is through.
@ JD I added you to friends btw, friend me back if you wanna do any scrims or test 11/18 or others in ZvZ
This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
Can you show us the replays of you beating it with toss? I'd be very interested to see this and the zergs response. Unless you are replay shy that is...
Here's a replay of the best 11pool I was able to manage, by adjusting how I did the transfer, which gained 30 minerals at 6 mins over my previous best.
6 min stats: 4639 resources (spent + banked, which I think is 700 different from the stats in the graphs above) 51/52 supply, 44 drones, 6 overlords, 2 queens. 3 drones in production 1/17 3/17 16/17 Inject larvae status: 21/40 23/40
Here are the 6 minute stats from jacobman's 13pool/15hatch replay: 4630 resources 50/52, 44d 6ol 2q 6 drones in production 2/17x4 10/17 13/17 6:00 4000+200+430=4630 50/52 40d 6ol 2q 2/17x4 13/17 10/17 Inject status: 1/40 37/40
So the 11pool is equal on resources, ahead 4 drones completed, ahead 1 larvae overall, and about equal on injects (two halfway done vs one almost done)
On December 04 2010 09:24 Skrag wrote: Here's a replay of the best 11pool I was able to manage, by adjusting how I did the transfer, which gained 30 minerals at 6 mins over my previous best.
6 min stats: 4639 resources (spent + banked, which I think is 700 different from the stats in the graphs above) 51/52 supply, 44 drones, 6 overlords, 2 queens. 3 drones in production 1/17 3/17 16/17 Inject larvae status: 21/40 23/40
Here are the 6 minute stats from jacobman's 13pool/15hatch replay: 4630 resources 50/52, 44d 6ol 2q 6 drones in production 2/17x4 10/17 13/17 6:00 4000+200+430=4630 50/52 40d 6ol 2q 2/17x4 13/17 10/17 Inject status: 1/40 37/40
So the 11pool is equal on resources, ahead 4 drones completed, ahead 1 larvae overall, and about equal on injects (two halfway done vs one almost done)
I'm really impressed that you guys keep managing to get more out the build. If better replays of the 11 pool had come out earlier we couldn't have needed to do all that discussing earlier What may I ask did you actually do to eek out the extra 30 minerals?
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
a little queen micro and let them beat on your hatch while roaches pop is all you need. i think this build does best against toss imo. 2 zealots + probe is not going to kill a hatch anytime soon. focus the probe with the 2-4 lings u have out already. as soon as i see 2 gates go up before a cyber, throw down roach warren, and roaches will pop just in the nick of time.
ive found spines are completely unneccesary, although i do put one down so they have something else to attack, and then cancel it before it finishes/dies. start ling speed asap, and then all the rest of your gas (off 1 geyser) towards roaches, extra minerals towards lings. this provides a lot of units. ive had several toss comment that they did not expect me to have so many units out so quickly. any kind of 3-4 gate push (even throw a robo in there for immortals) is absolutely no problem for this build in my experience.
has anyone gone up against marine +scv rushes? i lost twice in a row to them today 11 pooling and it was very frustrating. i think 14 hatch on big maps is the way to go, so you can get that spine completed before they roll in.
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
Can you show us the replays of you beating it with toss? I'd be very interested to see this and the zergs response. Unless you are replay shy that is...
Replays aren't saved. I've played more than 10 games since. You can test it if you want. Get a gate on 10 or 12. Then go gas -> zealot -> core -> zealot -> stalker. Attack with your first 2 zealots and a probe.
The hatch won't be done yet when the 2 zealots arrive, so there's no creep. If there aren't already lings at the nat, it's gg. You can either build 2 pylons at the bottom of the ramp to wall it off and attack the hatch until the rallied stalker arrives to shoot the zerglings plucking away at the pylons. Or you can build one pylon and wall off the rest of the ramp with your 2 zealots protecting your pylon till your rallied stalker arrives.
If there are 8 or fewer lings defending the nat, kill them. The queen most likely won't be there yet, but if she is, she's too slow to micro. If there are 10 lings, you can engage with step micro. You probably won't kill the hatch, but you'll kill most of the lings and your rallied stalkers will have a field day since zergling speed is ages away. If there are 12+ lings, Z will get the hatch up safely, but his economy is crap.
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
Can you show us the replays of you beating it with toss? I'd be very interested to see this and the zergs response. Unless you are replay shy that is...
Replays aren't saved. I've played more than 10 games since. You can test it if you want. Get a gate on 10 or 12. Then go gas -> zealot -> core -> zealot -> stalker. Attack with your first 2 zealots and a probe.
The hatch won't be done yet when the 2 zealots arrive, so there's no creep. If there aren't already lings at the nat, it's gg. You can either build 2 pylons at the bottom of the ramp to wall it off and attack the hatch until the rallied stalker arrives to shoot the zerglings plucking away at the pylons. Or you can build one pylon and wall off the rest of the ramp with your 2 zealots protecting your pylon till your rallied stalker arrives.
If there are 8 or fewer lings defending the nat, kill them. The queen most likely won't be there yet, but if she is, she's too slow to micro. If there are 10 lings, you can engage with step micro. You probably won't kill the hatch, but you'll kill most of the lings and your rallied stalkers will have a field day since zergling speed is ages away. If there are 12+ lings, Z will get the hatch up safely, but his economy is crap.
No, no, that's alright. I'll just wait for you to play another game and post the replay. This thread is already too full of people making claims and then asking other people to provide the proof. Not that I doubt your example, but I'd like to see the evidence so I can analyze it myself.
On December 04 2010 09:34 jacobman wrote: I'm really impressed that you guys keep managing to get more out the build. If better replays of the 11 pool had come out earlier we couldn't have needed to do all that discussing earlier What may I ask did you actually do to eek out the extra 30 minerals?
I just figured out a much better way to transfer. I had 5 drones that were going to complete around the same time as the second hatch, so I rallied them over to the expansion, and only pulled 2 workers from the main mineral line. In previous games, I think I had been letting those 5 drones go to the main, pulling 7 random drones off. Letting your workers continue in their routine can make a pretty big difference, because any workers that are bouncing around looking for patches to mine are basically contributing ZERO minerals to your economy.
Of course, the fact that a better transfer made that much of a difference means that how you manage your transfers can actually have a larger impact on your economy than what build you choose to use. lol
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
a little queen micro and let them beat on your hatch while roaches pop is all you need. i think this build does best against toss imo. 2 zealots + probe is not going to kill a hatch anytime soon. focus the probe with the 2-4 lings u have out already. as soon as i see 2 gates go up before a cyber, throw down roach warren, and roaches will pop just in the nick of time.
ive found spines are completely unneccesary, although i do put one down so they have something else to attack, and then cancel it before it finishes/dies. start ling speed asap, and then all the rest of your gas (off 1 geyser) towards roaches, extra minerals towards lings. this provides a lot of units. ive had several toss comment that they did not expect me to have so many units out so quickly. any kind of 3-4 gate push (even throw a robo in there for immortals) is absolutely no problem for this build in my experience.
has anyone gone up against marine +scv rushes? i lost twice in a row to them today 11 pooling and it was very frustrating. i think 14 hatch on big maps is the way to go, so you can get that spine completed before they roll in.
You understand that the issue is the lack of creep, right? Queen micro isn't an option. And yes, 2 zealots take a long time to kill a hatch (tho they'll kill it surprisingly quickly as it doesn't have structure armor while morphing), but the real deadline to have adequate defense is the arrival of the stalker. Once the stalker shows up, your only option to save your hatch is to beat zealots + stalker at a walled off choke with slow zerglings. There's no good way to do that.
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
a little queen micro and let them beat on your hatch while roaches pop is all you need. i think this build does best against toss imo. 2 zealots + probe is not going to kill a hatch anytime soon. focus the probe with the 2-4 lings u have out already. as soon as i see 2 gates go up before a cyber, throw down roach warren, and roaches will pop just in the nick of time.
ive found spines are completely unneccesary, although i do put one down so they have something else to attack, and then cancel it before it finishes/dies. start ling speed asap, and then all the rest of your gas (off 1 geyser) towards roaches, extra minerals towards lings. this provides a lot of units. ive had several toss comment that they did not expect me to have so many units out so quickly. any kind of 3-4 gate push (even throw a robo in there for immortals) is absolutely no problem for this build in my experience.
has anyone gone up against marine +scv rushes? i lost twice in a row to them today 11 pooling and it was very frustrating. i think 14 hatch on big maps is the way to go, so you can get that spine completed before they roll in.
You understand that the issue is the lack of creep, right? Queen micro isn't an option. And yes, 2 zealots take a long time to kill a hatch (tho they'll kill it surprisingly quickly as it doesn't have structure armor while morphing), but the real deadline to have adequate defense is the arrival of the stalker. Once the stalker shows up, your only option to save your hatch is to beat zealots + stalker at a walled off choke with slow zerglings. There's no good way to do that.
Does expo creep even reach the ramp on most / any maps? I'm pretty sure that at least for the majority of maps having creep at the bottom of your ramp is going to depend on whether or not you use your first queen's 25 energy for a tumor or for larva.
I see there's a lot of haters of the build. I'm no expert by any means, but I have been having quite a deal of success using this build on the ladder. Since I have started testing the build online, I have ran into several other Zergs using the build as well, so it is definitely gaining popularity on the ladder (1800+ diamond).
If you want to see the replays, go to the other thread (Ending the zerg economy debate) and I have several replays posted there, including one of me vs another zerg that used the Lomilar build. You are definitely able to drone hard and have a great economy, it just requires good scouting to know when you should build attacking units.
EDIT: Also, I would like to point one other thing out. While I do like this build quite a bit, there is one thing I miss about my 14 hatch/14 Hatch is the creep spread. It doesn't seem like I can spend my minerals quite right and get my creep spread as quickly with the 11pool/18 hatch. That faster hatch and immediate 2 queens is great for that purpose. Not necessarily a con, it's just something to be aware of as the build does play differently from hatch first builds.
On December 04 2010 09:45 SovSov wrote: ..why is it being compared to 13pool/15hatch?
Who uses that build?
Oh wait, I must be trolling, time to ignore me!
YES YOU DAMN WELL ARE:
On December 02 2010 08:20 jdseemoreglass wrote: I requested build orders to test, and jacobman was the only one who provided. Therefore don't complain if you want to see 14 Pool or anything else compared, because I won't do it. Have a nice day.
It honestly doesn't matter how the OP is written because the trolls won't read it. In fact the trolls get dumber with every page that passes. It's fascinating to watch, in a car crash sort of way. Only it's more like after the car crash and some bastard has taught the head injury victim to type again and set them loose on this forum.
I am amazed that people still try to help with build orders. The 5RR thread started off with the OP explaining the disadvantages, even using the words insta-lose and the thread went for 40 pages, most of which was retards claiming the OP said the build was perfect.
Thankyou to the OP, and the 5 or so others that tried to make this a constructive thread - you know who you are.
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
a little queen micro and let them beat on your hatch while roaches pop is all you need. i think this build does best against toss imo. 2 zealots + probe is not going to kill a hatch anytime soon. focus the probe with the 2-4 lings u have out already. as soon as i see 2 gates go up before a cyber, throw down roach warren, and roaches will pop just in the nick of time.
ive found spines are completely unneccesary, although i do put one down so they have something else to attack, and then cancel it before it finishes/dies. start ling speed asap, and then all the rest of your gas (off 1 geyser) towards roaches, extra minerals towards lings. this provides a lot of units. ive had several toss comment that they did not expect me to have so many units out so quickly. any kind of 3-4 gate push (even throw a robo in there for immortals) is absolutely no problem for this build in my experience.
has anyone gone up against marine +scv rushes? i lost twice in a row to them today 11 pooling and it was very frustrating. i think 14 hatch on big maps is the way to go, so you can get that spine completed before they roll in.
You understand that the issue is the lack of creep, right? Queen micro isn't an option. And yes, 2 zealots take a long time to kill a hatch (tho they'll kill it surprisingly quickly as it doesn't have structure armor while morphing), but the real deadline to have adequate defense is the arrival of the stalker. Once the stalker shows up, your only option to save your hatch is to beat zealots + stalker at a walled off choke with slow zerglings. There's no good way to do that.
Does expo creep even reach the ramp on most / any maps? I'm pretty sure that at least for the majority of maps having creep at the bottom of your ramp is going to depend on whether or not you use your first queen's 25 energy for a tumor or for larva.
Creep at the ramp to prevent pylon block is useful, but the bigger issue is queen mobility. You can use your queen for defense against zealots with an earlier hatch because zealots can't hit a microed queen on creep. 11 pool 18 hatch, if you use your queen for defense, you'll likely lose her.
The queen is incredibly important for defending zealot pokes. With creep, zealot defense works as follows:
Zerglings are fragile, so you never want zealots hitting zerglings. Zealots start out hitting the hatchery, but take ranged damage from the queen. Zerg lets the zealots hit the queen so that the lings can get in free DPS. If the queen gets low on health, Zerg pulls her back.
Without creep, you can't pull the queen back, so you can't engage the zealots unless your force is stronger.
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
a little queen micro and let them beat on your hatch while roaches pop is all you need. i think this build does best against toss imo. 2 zealots + probe is not going to kill a hatch anytime soon. focus the probe with the 2-4 lings u have out already. as soon as i see 2 gates go up before a cyber, throw down roach warren, and roaches will pop just in the nick of time.
ive found spines are completely unneccesary, although i do put one down so they have something else to attack, and then cancel it before it finishes/dies. start ling speed asap, and then all the rest of your gas (off 1 geyser) towards roaches, extra minerals towards lings. this provides a lot of units. ive had several toss comment that they did not expect me to have so many units out so quickly. any kind of 3-4 gate push (even throw a robo in there for immortals) is absolutely no problem for this build in my experience.
has anyone gone up against marine +scv rushes? i lost twice in a row to them today 11 pooling and it was very frustrating. i think 14 hatch on big maps is the way to go, so you can get that spine completed before they roll in.
You understand that the issue is the lack of creep, right? Queen micro isn't an option. And yes, 2 zealots take a long time to kill a hatch (tho they'll kill it surprisingly quickly as it doesn't have structure armor while morphing), but the real deadline to have adequate defense is the arrival of the stalker. Once the stalker shows up, your only option to save your hatch is to beat zealots + stalker at a walled off choke with slow zerglings. There's no good way to do that.
I completely trust what you say kcdc but can we see a replay just so the timings are clear. I know there's a lot of variables like how many lings he has that change the way you respond but a replay would still be awesome if for nothing other than simply seeing the timings. I would offer to play a game with you to see the timings but I'm certain i won't be able to preform 11/18 to its full potential. Thanks in advance P.s. I know the games in which you did this weren't saved but i just mean if you see the build in the future please save the game for us
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
a little queen micro and let them beat on your hatch while roaches pop is all you need. i think this build does best against toss imo. 2 zealots + probe is not going to kill a hatch anytime soon. focus the probe with the 2-4 lings u have out already. as soon as i see 2 gates go up before a cyber, throw down roach warren, and roaches will pop just in the nick of time.
ive found spines are completely unneccesary, although i do put one down so they have something else to attack, and then cancel it before it finishes/dies. start ling speed asap, and then all the rest of your gas (off 1 geyser) towards roaches, extra minerals towards lings. this provides a lot of units. ive had several toss comment that they did not expect me to have so many units out so quickly. any kind of 3-4 gate push (even throw a robo in there for immortals) is absolutely no problem for this build in my experience.
has anyone gone up against marine +scv rushes? i lost twice in a row to them today 11 pooling and it was very frustrating. i think 14 hatch on big maps is the way to go, so you can get that spine completed before they roll in.
You understand that the issue is the lack of creep, right? Queen micro isn't an option. And yes, 2 zealots take a long time to kill a hatch (tho they'll kill it surprisingly quickly as it doesn't have structure armor while morphing), but the real deadline to have adequate defense is the arrival of the stalker. Once the stalker shows up, your only option to save your hatch is to beat zealots + stalker at a walled off choke with slow zerglings. There's no good way to do that.
I completely trust what you say kcdc but can we see a replay just so the timings are clear. I know there's a lot of variables like how many lings he has that change the way you respond but a replay would still be awesome if for nothing other than simply seeing the timings. I would offer to play a game with you to see the timings but I'm certain i won't be able to preform 11/18 to its full potential. Thanks in advance P.s. I know the games in which you did this weren't saved but i just mean if you see the build in the future please save the game for us
Will do.
I can't do it right now, but if anyone wants to test when your 2nd zealot finishes on 12-gate -> gas -> zealot -> core -> zealot, it'd be pretty easy to compare that to the timing when the 18-hatch finishes.
Queens are really weak off creep. As a general rule, if your build relies on defending early pressure with queens, you'd better have creep when that early pressure will arrive. In this case, I think you either need more lings or an earlier hatch.
On December 04 2010 09:21 kcdc wrote: This opening has definitely jumped up in popularity on the ladder. I've played against it once in ZvZ (I won w/ 14 pool, but it wasn't a BO loss by any means) and a couple times as P. IMO, it's VERY easy to beat as P because the creep is too late on the expo. I killed the expo both times with 2 zealot + probe poke followed by rallied stalkers off 1 gateway. Z can't use spine crawlers and can't micro the queen away from zealots. No creep also means it's very easy to pylon block the ramp while you're attacking to cut off reinforcements. Without creep or zergling speed, you need to have 10+ zerglings at your nat before P can get 2 zealots from 1 gateway and cross the map. No hope of having a good economy at that point.
a little queen micro and let them beat on your hatch while roaches pop is all you need. i think this build does best against toss imo. 2 zealots + probe is not going to kill a hatch anytime soon. focus the probe with the 2-4 lings u have out already. as soon as i see 2 gates go up before a cyber, throw down roach warren, and roaches will pop just in the nick of time.
ive found spines are completely unneccesary, although i do put one down so they have something else to attack, and then cancel it before it finishes/dies. start ling speed asap, and then all the rest of your gas (off 1 geyser) towards roaches, extra minerals towards lings. this provides a lot of units. ive had several toss comment that they did not expect me to have so many units out so quickly. any kind of 3-4 gate push (even throw a robo in there for immortals) is absolutely no problem for this build in my experience.
has anyone gone up against marine +scv rushes? i lost twice in a row to them today 11 pooling and it was very frustrating. i think 14 hatch on big maps is the way to go, so you can get that spine completed before they roll in.
You understand that the issue is the lack of creep, right? Queen micro isn't an option. And yes, 2 zealots take a long time to kill a hatch (tho they'll kill it surprisingly quickly as it doesn't have structure armor while morphing), but the real deadline to have adequate defense is the arrival of the stalker. Once the stalker shows up, your only option to save your hatch is to beat zealots + stalker at a walled off choke with slow zerglings. There's no good way to do that.
I completely trust what you say kcdc but can we see a replay just so the timings are clear. I know there's a lot of variables like how many lings he has that change the way you respond but a replay would still be awesome if for nothing other than simply seeing the timings. I would offer to play a game with you to see the timings but I'm certain i won't be able to preform 11/18 to its full potential. Thanks in advance P.s. I know the games in which you did this weren't saved but i just mean if you see the build in the future please save the game for us
Will do.
I can't do it right now, but if anyone wants to test when your 2nd zealot finishes on 12-gate -> gas -> zealot -> core -> zealot, it'd be pretty easy to compare that to the timing when the 18-hatch finishes.
Queens are really weak off creep. As a general rule, if your build relies on defending early pressure with queens, you'd better have creep when that early pressure will arrive. In this case, I think you either need more lings or an earlier hatch.
If you just want to look at the timings for when 2 zealots and a probe could poke then mustn't we assume that this causes an insta-lose for the timing to be relevant? I know I've held plenty of zealot/probe pokes with just a few zerglings and slow queen. Not to say that I'm awesome or a model of perfect play, but I just have trouble believing that this causes insta-lose until I see the actual replays, and not just the timings.
PM me if you'd like to exchange IDs and test this with you as toss.
It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
On December 04 2010 10:15 kcdc wrote: Queens are really weak off creep. As a general rule, if your build relies on defending early pressure with queens, you'd better have creep when that early pressure will arrive. In this case, I think you either need more lings or an earlier hatch.
But the build doesn't really rely on defending early pressure with queens, zerg can scout your response (delayed core, chrono boost on gateway) just fine with an overlord and make lings instead of drones. You're going for early pressure against an 11pool.
This seems like a pretty big risk as you have to choose if you're going to delay your core before he builds an expansion hatchery.
You aren't simply going up against a standard 18 Hatch. If the Zerg opponent is scouting like he should, he will easily detect that you are going for early zealot pressure and he will cut drone production and get a few lings. Once the threat is gone, Zerg is still in a great position to start droning hard and get his economy back on track.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
On December 04 2010 10:15 kcdc wrote: Queens are really weak off creep. As a general rule, if your build relies on defending early pressure with queens, you'd better have creep when that early pressure will arrive. In this case, I think you either need more lings or an earlier hatch.
But the build doesn't really rely on defending early pressure with queens, zerg can scout your response (delayed core, chrono boost on gateway) just fine with an overlord and make lings instead of drones. You're going for early pressure against an 11pool.
This seems like a pretty big risk as you have to choose if you're going to delay your core before he builds an expansion hatchery.
You need at least 6 lings to kill a zealot and a probe and at least 10 lings to kill 2 zealots and a probe. If the zealots are microed well, it can take more. That's not a cost-effective defense at a time where every drone produced is critical.
P delays core by a only few seconds by getting a zealot first. Nothing else is affected. It's perfectly safe and economical. I open this way against Zerg most of the time as it's a cheap way to force lings off of only 1 gateway without cutting probes or gas.
As for the issue of applying pressure against an 11 pool, 11 pool makes P want to get a zealot ASAP. When P sees that no larvae are saved for lings at the completion of the pool, P knows he can pressure with the zealot he's built.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
There is no such thing as a BO loss with an 11 pool if the zerg is playing correctly and responding appropriately, that's all.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
There is no such thing as a BO loss with an 11 pool if the zerg is playing correctly and responding appropriately, that's all.
It's not the 11 pool that's a problem. It's the 18 hatch.
Zerg needs to defend the hatch at the nat efficiently to avoid falling behind. Zerg needs creep to defend efficiently against zealots. Zealots can arrive before the 18 hatch produces creep. Therefore, Protoss can develop a lead against an 18 hatch.
Supposing the zerg sees your zealot being produced and gets a roach lair or ling speed instead of an expo, is that a counter-build-order-loss? Or is toss smiling at that?
Would an in-base hatch followed by a delayed expansion hatch be ok?
This build seems promising vs toss. Since it's kinda risky to 14 hatch nowadays and this is the second most economic opening, it seems to make sense. I haven't tested it against early pressure though like 2 zealots + a probe, or 2 CBed stalkers so I don't know how it'll fare against something like that.
This was about as close to perfect as I could get, and it seems to corroborate his data. Now all we need to do is start cataloging the efficient combat unit responses, so we can capitalize on this flexibility.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
There is no such thing as a BO loss with an 11 pool if the zerg is playing correctly and responding appropriately, that's all.
It's not the 11 pool that's a problem. It's the 18 hatch.
Zerg needs to defend the hatch at the nat efficiently to avoid falling behind. Zerg needs creep to defend efficiently against zealots. Zealots can arrive before the 18 hatch produces creep. Therefore, Protoss can develop a lead against an 18 hatch.
pure theorycraft here, but what if the 11 overpooling player was content to lose the first queen, and just used her and the hatch to tank some damage while lings poked at the zealots? With 2 early queens, usually the first does inject, then a tumor, getting creep headed down to the natural. She'd be out of energy, but free to guard the ramp and hatchery. 150 minerals for the queen, 200 more for 8 lings, vs your 2 zealots and a probe (more money for the Z given defender's advantage that early). Any ideas how that would play out? Sacrificing the queen in this situation wouldn't put the zerg too far behind, the second queen would cover injections, and larva would still be available for drones (compared to, say, trying to get 14 lings or something.)
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
There is no such thing as a BO loss with an 11 pool if the zerg is playing correctly and responding appropriately, that's all.
It's not the 11 pool that's a problem. It's the 18 hatch.
Zerg needs to defend the hatch at the nat efficiently to avoid falling behind. Zerg needs creep to defend efficiently against zealots. Zealots can arrive before the 18 hatch produces creep. Therefore, Protoss can develop a lead against an 18 hatch.
The zerge can give up plenty of hits on his hatch from 1 zealot +1 probe. 1500 HP from 1 zealot + 1 probe is ~ 2mins of game time. That's enough time to start, move and burrow a Spine Crawler. If its started in your main base in time when your overlord sees the chrono boosted zealot that is plenty of time. As long as the zerg doesn't panic he can let the hatch tank 700 damage the first minute while getting a couple of lings and either a crawler or a queen to bring down to kill of the lots.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
There is no such thing as a BO loss with an 11 pool if the zerg is playing correctly and responding appropriately, that's all.
It's not the 11 pool that's a problem. It's the 18 hatch.
Zerg needs to defend the hatch at the nat efficiently to avoid falling behind. Zerg needs creep to defend efficiently against zealots. Zealots can arrive before the 18 hatch produces creep. Therefore, Protoss can develop a lead against an 18 hatch.
pure theorycraft here, but what if the 11 overpooling player was content to lose the first queen, and just used her and the hatch to tank some damage while lings poked at the zealots? With 2 early queens, usually the first does inject, then a tumor, getting creep headed down to the natural. She'd be out of energy, but free to guard the ramp and hatchery. 150 minerals for the queen, 200 more for 8 lings, vs your 2 zealots and a probe (more money for the Z given defender's advantage that early). Any ideas how that would play out? Sacrificing the queen in this situation wouldn't put the zerg too far behind, the second queen would cover injections, and larva would still be available for drones (compared to, say, trying to get 14 lings or something.)
You're better off just getting the hatch a little earlier. It's not like 11 pool requires 18 hatch. I suspect 11 overpool 16 hatch would be safer vs P.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
There is no such thing as a BO loss with an 11 pool if the zerg is playing correctly and responding appropriately, that's all.
It's not the 11 pool that's a problem. It's the 18 hatch.
Zerg needs to defend the hatch at the nat efficiently to avoid falling behind. Zerg needs creep to defend efficiently against zealots. Zealots can arrive before the 18 hatch produces creep. Therefore, Protoss can develop a lead against an 18 hatch.
pure theorycraft here, but what if the 11 overpooling player was content to lose the first queen, and just used her and the hatch to tank some damage while lings poked at the zealots? With 2 early queens, usually the first does inject, then a tumor, getting creep headed down to the natural. She'd be out of energy, but free to guard the ramp and hatchery. 150 minerals for the queen, 200 more for 8 lings, vs your 2 zealots and a probe (more money for the Z given defender's advantage that early). Any ideas how that would play out? Sacrificing the queen in this situation wouldn't put the zerg too far behind, the second queen would cover injections, and larva would still be available for drones (compared to, say, trying to get 14 lings or something.)
You're better off just getting the hatch a little earlier. It's not like 11 pool requires 18 hatch. I suspect 11 overpool 16 hatch would be safer vs P.
Sounds like chopping off your arm to fix a papercut to me...
Honestly, this is all very theoretical without an actual game to see, but it seems to me like an 11 pool build would have no problem holding off a couple zealots... There is no chance a couple zealots are gonna take out a hatch when you have a queen inject about to finish to pump 8 lings.
probably you would want to be scouting at around the time the 1st gate is about to finish, to see if he is 2gating (watch for core, or for zlots) , building a zlot ASAP, or getting the core ASAP, and adjust accordingly. Not sure how the timings line up, maybe you need to blind 16hat before you know if he's going for the zlot.
If you scout with a drone when you hit 11 supply, you should be on time to scout the early zealot, and respond appropriately. Depending on your map, and if the drone survives, that drone could return about the time you start your hatch. This has happened a couple times while I was playing with this build. Don't have a replay for ya though.
On December 04 2010 14:36 Keilah wrote: probably you would want to be scouting at around the time the 1st gate is about to finish, to see if he is 2gating (watch for core, or for zlots) , building a zlot ASAP, or getting the core ASAP, and adjust accordingly. Not sure how the timings line up, maybe you need to blind 16hat before you know if he's going for the zlot.
Found a good zerg who opens with 11 overpool vs toss. Magulina He doesn't do the exact build in the OP. He actually seems to like making 6 lings to pressure before expanding.
On December 04 2010 16:47 Warrior Madness wrote: Found a good zerg who opens with 11 overpool vs toss. Magulina He doesn't do the exact build in the OP. He actually seems to like making 6 lings to pressure before expanding.
I spent some time working out a variation that incorporates some of the practical aspects of the game into the build. While I am no expert, I believe the following build is one possibility. I understand that I've lost quite a bit of the economic advantage of the OPs build, but I think I put it to good use.
I did not take the time to run this at ultra-slow, and maximize measurements, so these numbers are a bit deflated. I'm not skilled enough to really make this shine at full speed. That also means the supply timings listed late in the build might be off by one or two. I'll work on a cleaner replay tomorrow.
On December 02 2010 14:28 Cheshyr wrote: I tried it a couple times tonight, as a lowly Bronze. In the most notable game, I failed to defend the first speedling rush from a Silver player, but managed to repel the 'lings using my excessive drone force. I recovered quickly, and won easily with Roaches.
I admit, it was an awful game, I'm a terrible player, and I executed the BO poorly. It still worked. I think I'm going to continue to use this build.
I'm glad you admit that, it's one of the first steps (admitting you have a problem. In my opinion, you didn't repel it, you lost your natural (drones) and a fair amount of your base drone's. At this point, you were WAY behind,and a second and third wave of 2 base speedlings (pumped by Queen's) would have ended the game in about 2-3 minutes, I assume (slightly before the roaches appeared).
You won, because your opponent bizarrely never took his naturally and then decided not to press when he had the advantage, but instead to macro without replacing his army he lost killing your drones. This is a mistake I've made (from ahead) but it's a newbie one and one you can't count on it past bronze,
You had nice drone output in the build, but without the gas, you are vulnerable to anything with the slightly amount of speed or DT. (stalkers, repears, helliions and fastlings come to mind). In my lowly opinion (take it for what it's worth), the first 200 gas needs to come fairly fast. The first 100 for speedlings and the 2nd for Lair (for Hydra's) for Air defense and Observers for dark templar.
On December 02 2010 14:28 Cheshyr wrote: I tried it a couple times tonight, as a lowly Bronze. In the most notable game, I failed to defend the first speedling rush from a Silver player, but managed to repel the 'lings using my excessive drone force. I recovered quickly, and won easily with Roaches.
I admit, it was an awful game, I'm a terrible player, and I executed the BO poorly. It still worked. I think I'm going to continue to use this build.
I'm glad you admit that, it's one of the first steps (admitting you have a problem. In my opinion, you didn't repel it, you lost your natural (drones) and a fair amount of your base drone's. At this point, you were WAY behind,and a second and third wave of 2 base speedlings (pumped by Queen's) would have ended the game in about 2-3 minutes, I assume (slightly before the roaches appeared).
You won, because your opponent bizarrely never took his naturally and then decided not to press when he had the advantage, but instead to macro without replacing his army he lost killing your drones. This is a mistake I've made (from ahead) but it's a newbie one and one you can't count on it past bronze,
You had nice drone output in the build, but without the gas, you are vulnerable to anything with the slightly amount of speed or DT. (stalkers, repears, helliions and fastlings come to mind). In my lowly opinion (take it for what it's worth), the first 200 gas needs to come fairly fast. The first 100 for speedlings and the 2nd for Lair (for Hydra's) for Air defense and Observers for dark templar.
I suspect that you are unaware of the purpose of this thread, Opus2.
I'm very interested in that build, but i wasn't confident for the ZvZ. But, i never went for hatch first in ZvZ, or maybe on shakuras if i want to bet a little.
I always went for 14 gaz 13 pool. Or something close ( 13 gaz/13 pool etc..). I want my speed asap, and some possible gaz after that, depends on my scout. I want t be able to follow an expend if my opponent FE ( then i pressure him with speed ling ) or i want to be able to go roache if he went bane with low econ.
It's just a feeling. What i love in that 11overpool isn't so much the forum battle about what's best éco, but it's the adaptability you can have, if i choose to drone, then apparently it's ok or maybe better, or not. But, it's a tiny difference so i don't care so much. I'll test it on the ladder, see how it feels.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
There is no such thing as a BO loss with an 11 pool if the zerg is playing correctly and responding appropriately, that's all.
It's not the 11 pool that's a problem. It's the 18 hatch.
Zerg needs to defend the hatch at the nat efficiently to avoid falling behind. Zerg needs creep to defend efficiently against zealots. Zealots can arrive before the 18 hatch produces creep. Therefore, Protoss can develop a lead against an 18 hatch.
pure theorycraft here, but what if the 11 overpooling player was content to lose the first queen, and just used her and the hatch to tank some damage while lings poked at the zealots? With 2 early queens, usually the first does inject, then a tumor, getting creep headed down to the natural. She'd be out of energy, but free to guard the ramp and hatchery. 150 minerals for the queen, 200 more for 8 lings, vs your 2 zealots and a probe (more money for the Z given defender's advantage that early). Any ideas how that would play out? Sacrificing the queen in this situation wouldn't put the zerg too far behind, the second queen would cover injections, and larva would still be available for drones (compared to, say, trying to get 14 lings or something.)
You're better off just getting the hatch a little earlier. It's not like 11 pool requires 18 hatch. I suspect 11 overpool 16 hatch would be safer vs P.
Sounds like chopping off your arm to fix a papercut to me...
Honestly, this is all very theoretical without an actual game to see, but it seems to me like an 11 pool build would have no problem holding off a couple zealots... There is no chance a couple zealots are gonna take out a hatch when you have a queen inject about to finish to pump 8 lings.
A replay would sure help.
@ kcdc
Thanks for the possible tip. It's always good to know what may or may not be an issue. I don't know if you're right though. I would have to see some evidence.
I'm always of the opinion that any claims need to be backed up with some replays to examine. How do we know that the other player just didn't do something wrong. Perhaps they could have cut a drone or two and had enough lings out to defend by the time you got there. We can't really know since we can't see the game. I haven't tested your claim myself so unless I see a replay supporting what you say, or I test it myself and find out you are correct, I'll just keep it in the back of my mind as a possibility.
Make sure you save the replay next time. Also, if it does turn out that the creep is an issue, then making an early hatch is not that big of an issue. We went over that with the 13 Pool 15 Hatch debacle. You lose about 3 larva later in the game, which isn't good, but if you can't defend the 18 Hatch, which I don't even know is true, it's not that big of a deal.
On December 04 2010 10:59 kcdc wrote: It doesn't have to be auto-loss for 18 hatch to be bad vs P. It just has to be more expensive to defend w/ an 18 hatch than it would be with an earlier hatch.
That said, I think 18 hatch is a build order loss to zealot before core.
lol wtf is this now? lmao...
Perhaps if you adjusted your attitude, the comments in this thread wouldn't be so hostile. The OP sets the tone.
I've only played it out twice, but I've explained what happened in both games and why I think 18 hatch is a BO loss to zealot before core. IMO, there's no efficient way to defend your morphing in nat against a 2 zealot + probe poke. If you wait to make your lings until the poke arrives, the probe creates a choke at the bottom of your ramp making zerglings extremely inefficient. If you try to prevent that with earlier lings and your queen, the queen can't micro because it doesn't have creep, so you need more zerglings than you would with an earlier hatch.
Without creep, defense is much more expensive. Protoss will be able to exploit that to develop a lead. In both of my games, I killed the hatch with minimal losses and ended the game quickly. That won't happen against a more careful Zerg, but there's no getting around the fact that a lack of creep will require a more expensive defense, and a more expensive defense will translate into a weaker economy.
There is no such thing as a BO loss with an 11 pool if the zerg is playing correctly and responding appropriately, that's all.
It's not the 11 pool that's a problem. It's the 18 hatch.
Zerg needs to defend the hatch at the nat efficiently to avoid falling behind. Zerg needs creep to defend efficiently against zealots. Zealots can arrive before the 18 hatch produces creep. Therefore, Protoss can develop a lead against an 18 hatch.
I believe the OP states that this is a very flexible build, and the player can fall back on heavy one base play. To me, that means seeing a 2gate heavy Zealot force and 1basing to Roaches until I feel confident enough to take my expo.
The 18 hatch isn't required; it's simply the most economical. However, circumstances change everything, and I know I wouldn't go for an expo vs a Toss player who is going to put on early pressure I can't fend off yet.
What I would do is simple:
Second Queen. Creep Tumor. Roaches/Speedlings--and then my hatch. The tumor gives ample creep spread to the natural, and affords you the opportunity to set down some crawlers. The units will fend off any heavy Gateway push, and you'll find yourself in a nice position.
I admit, it was an awful game, I'm a terrible player, and I executed the BO poorly. It still worked. I think I'm going to continue to use this build.
I'm glad you admit that, it's one of the first steps (admitting you have a problem. In my opinion, you didn't repel it, you lost your natural (drones) and a fair amount of your base drone's...
Gah, I need to remove that old replay. That was kinda of horrible. ;-) Not that I've suddenly gotten better or anything, but this thread is so far beyond that point now. That was what?.. page 4? Yeah, edited into oblivion.
The newer replay that I posted on this page is something else entirely. I'm not attempting to show real gameplay; just an example of a variation on the OPs build that gives you defense and gas. I chose 'ling speed, but that could easily have been roaches.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback on that old replay. I'm more focused on the new one now. :-)
I've been using this build on ladder I'm a 1950 gold, I can just feel a jump to platinum soon. But, I was wondering how to deal with a bunker rush. Should I not but the hatch down at 18 or just send some drones down to kill scv, and how many? I guess I'm also just asking how to deal with a bunker rush in general but specifically with the 11 overpool 18 hatch. Also if someone has any replays of them using this build to stop early pressure whether they be zealots, double stalkers, cannons, early marines, or bunker rushes that would make my day. Thanks!
On December 05 2010 04:55 ChiknAdobo wrote: I've been using this build on ladder I'm a 1950 gold, I can just feel a jump to platinum soon. But, I was wondering how to deal with a bunker rush. Should I not but the hatch down at 18 or just send some drones down to kill scv, and how many? I guess I'm also just asking how to deal with a bunker rush in general but specifically with the 11 overpool 18 hatch. Also if someone has any replays of them using this build to stop early pressure whether they be zealots, double stalkers, cannons, early marines, or bunker rushes that would make my day. Thanks!
When you get ready to expand just bring 2 workers to the nat, tell one to attack and micro the other one to attack until you see an opening to lay down the hatch. If you don't think you can do this just get 1 set of lings when pool finishes and use them. Also, send your second overlord to the natural so you'll have vision of any bunker / pylons they put down while it is building.
assuming villain is going for a 4gate and he is going to execute it well. When do you stop droning with this build? I've lost to every single 4gate since I stopped going hatch first.
For the people considering dropping their natural because of early pressure...the main reason for early zerg expansions isn't an economic one, it's larva.
Whether or not you can hold your natural under a given timing attack is debatable, but if you don't think so, or lack the skill or whatever, there is an alternative to just 1-base. Build another hatchery in your main.
Much easier to defend, and you keep your larva output high. You also don't need to spend queen energy on creep early.
I'm not saying do it every time, btw, just in those cases where you feel you are over-extending to build a hatch at the natural (or really any situation where you can't build at your natural for some reason).
On December 05 2010 05:33 dementrio wrote: assuming villain is going for a 4gate and he is going to execute it well. When do you stop droning with this build? I've lost to every single 4gate since I stopped going hatch first.
Have you taken a look at the replay against the 4gate?
I typically produce about 5 or so drones once my expo finishes, and then I devote 100% of my larvae to units if I am sure he is going 4gate. A couple spines, roaches, and lings are all you need most of the time. If he goes zealot heavy focus on roaches, and if he goes stalker/sentry heavy, then get more lings with speed. Keep adding on spines and units if it is a delayed push.
Just make sure you know when he is expanding, so you can switch back to 100% drones and not get behind economically.
You can see this in the game against the "MacroToss." I see the gates and focus on units, but as soon as my ling scouts the expo I pump drones and go for muta-tech with spines in the mean-time.
I am not sure why I keep losing to 4gates now, but I think it comes down to creep and queen timings. what I do is sac an overlord (if I cant get another scout in) around 25 food, and if I see the 4gate I immediately stop droning. However, with hatch first you get your 2 queens right after the pool finishes; I would immediately poop a tumor with one of them. I was able to get better creep spread around my nat so that I could engage his army farther away from my ramp as possible; I could also put my spines down further.
With this build I can't get creep and spines positioned properly around my nat. The enemy just has to force field the ramp to get an insta win...
with another build ive been trying (10pool, 2 fast queens) the problem is that the hatch goes down too late - pops at about the time the 4gate is pushing out.
On December 05 2010 07:36 dementrio wrote: I watched the 4gate replay, and I don't think it was a good example. His push hit about 2 minutes later than a well timed 4gate which is huge.
Hmmm are you sure about that? From watching the replay I see him getting 4 gateways very quickly, with only about 2 units to defend, then he chronoboosts warpgate and attacks immediately after warping in his second round of units, which were also chronoboosted. It is hard to see how much faster a 4gate could come, but maybe I am missing something here...
If you have a replay of a game you lost it would certainly help me help you.
EDIT: My mistake, he didn't chrono his core, he saved it all for warpgates :/
today I went back to doing 15hatch after what seemed like a long time, and tbh I feel the difference in economy. with hatch first I am looking to take my 3rd much earlier than with any pool-first build. I think that I'll revert back to hatch first against toss because the only thing it is vulnerable to is cannon walls and that's easy to prevent; I also think it plays better versus toss' timing pushes.
Against terran I think that if I go pool first I also want quicker tech and I still have to find a build that feels smooth in that regard.
In zvz I feel like the very early game is so critical that it's hard to deviate from the "standard" builds out there. It's gonna be hard to put down a 18 hatch with no gas against speedling openings because soon after that you'll have banelings at your door... the 11overpool is a tad too late to consistently punish hatch first. Its true that its flexible, but the problem is that whatever the direction you choose to deviate in it will be less efficient than the boring build designed specifically for that, and in a mirror match this can easily cost you the game.
So there was a lot of discussion earlier about the build and if it's truly the most economical extremely early pool build. the OP requested that previous comments be changed, so in case I missed one or two here is my final position on this issue, which for me is closed.
new replays have been made for the 11 pool 18 hatch with much better play. This brought the numbers exactly equal with the replay of the 13 pool 15 hatch build I posted as far as economy. My current opinion is that the 11 pool is basically economically equal to the 13 pool build. I have started to use build order testers instead of replays though. I found replays have the capability to be off by as much as 150 and are unreliable. Build order testers always play at the same level, perfect. The build order tester says the 13 pool is only ahead by a measly 30 minerals, which is nothing. The 11 pool puts out more larva, so I would go with the 11 pool. I think it is the best early pool build. It is a VERY good build order.
I was skeptical at first but I gave it a go and it worked and felt good.
Here is a replay on Jungle basic vs 3rax 16 marine push by T, followed by 16 marine with stim and shields. I felt pretty good defending this and getting my tech nice and early.
On December 05 2010 04:55 ChiknAdobo wrote: I've been using this build on ladder I'm a 1950 gold, I can just feel a jump to platinum soon. But, I was wondering how to deal with a bunker rush. Should I not but the hatch down at 18 or just send some drones down to kill scv, and how many? I guess I'm also just asking how to deal with a bunker rush in general but specifically with the 11 overpool 18 hatch. Also if someone has any replays of them using this build to stop early pressure whether they be zealots, double stalkers, cannons, early marines, or bunker rushes that would make my day. Thanks!
when pool finishes, get queen as planned and extractor trick a pair of lings out and send them with the second hatch drone, the timing is perfect (lings get to nat aaround the time you hit 300 mins) on most maps.
EDIT: those lings can then be used to take xel naga watch towers
EDIT: your opponent will very rarely try something like that when he scouts an 11 pool btw^^
On December 05 2010 18:14 jacobman wrote: So there was a lot of discussion earlier about the build and if it's truly the most economical extremely early pool build. the OP requested that previous comments be changed, so in case I missed one or two here is my final position on this issue, which for me is closed.
new replays have been made for the 11 pool 18 hatch with much better play. This brought the numbers exactly equal with the replay of the 13 pool 15 hatch build I posted as far as economy. My current opinion is that the 11 pool is basically economically equal to the 13 pool build. I have started to use build order testers instead of replays though. I found replays have the capability to be off by as much as 150 and are unreliable. Build order testers always play at the same level, perfect. The build order tester says the 13 pool is only ahead by a measly 30 minerals, which is nothing. The 11 pool puts out more larva, so I would go with the 11 pool. I think it is the best early pool build. It is a VERY good build order.
Halleluïa, you have seen the light!
The funnest part of this build, is the opponent's reaction. He will almost always prepare for early pressure, putting him even more behind eco-wise. Survive the first push, and you've one most of the time
On December 05 2010 18:14 jacobman wrote: So there was a lot of discussion earlier about the build and if it's truly the most economical extremely early pool build. the OP requested that previous comments be changed, so in case I missed one or two here is my final position on this issue, which for me is closed.
new replays have been made for the 11 pool 18 hatch with much better play. This brought the numbers exactly equal with the replay of the 13 pool 15 hatch build I posted as far as economy. My current opinion is that the 11 pool is basically economically equal to the 13 pool build. I have started to use build order testers instead of replays though. I found replays have the capability to be off by as much as 150 and are unreliable. Build order testers always play at the same level, perfect. The build order tester says the 13 pool is only ahead by a measly 30 minerals, which is nothing. The 11 pool puts out more larva, so I would go with the 11 pool. I think it is the best early pool build. It is a VERY good build order.
So I spent the last 2 days trying out and testing your builds.
Here are my impressions. 14 Hatch, 15 Pool is still more economical. It is however, very comparable. If you go Extractor before 18 Hatchery, you can get speed around the same time as Hatchery first builds with comparable economy. If you go Extractor before the first queen, you get speed early, but your economy is actually worse than typical builds. If you go extractor after 18 Hatchery, your speed is around 20 seconds later, with comparable economy to 14 Hatch 15 Pool
The reason this build works is because you take an economic hit with 11 pool to get an earlier queen, who makes it up with an earlier larvae inject. So you are behind until your first larvae inject finishes. However, when that first larvae inject finishes you pull ahead because of how much faster your larvae inject is compared to other builds. If you delay your first queen at all, you are behind.
Essentially if you were making a guide the build should be cut down to this 10 Extractor trick 11 Overlord 11 Pool 16 Queen -----------------------Everything up to this point is completely inflexible. 18 Gas (optional but highly recommended) 18 Hatchery
How this has changed my matchups. ZvZ - heck yeah I'm changing to 11 pool -> queen. New standard in ZvZ for sure imo. ZvP - you are behind from the period your queen pops out and the 40 seconds afterwards. A 2 gate zealot rush comes before then. no creep near your natural, so no spine crawler, so easy ramp contain. If I know my opponent is going 2 gate zealot, I would not suggest using this. However, there is not enough time to scout this before a 11 pool, so a maybe overall. This build has a great time against 2 stalker rush, 4 gate, and other similiar openings however. ZvT - On paper yes definitely, but I'm holding off on saying always do this against terran because creep spread is so important in ZvT. So maybe as well, not due to economic reasons. The build has the most potential to be explored here.
I would also like to say to the OP, that while I am impressed overall with the build, you are doing a terrible job with this thread. Compared to kcdc PvT 1 Gate FE thread, you are ignoring valid questions and writing people off as trolls. kcdc was very correct when he said you are creating a hostile environment, and that is why you are facing such opposition. there are actually very few trolls in this entire thread. You continue to say how flexible this build is, and how everything looks great at the 5-6 minute mark. An economic 6 pool looks great at the 6 minute mark, so that doesn't answer anything. You post replays but you haven't really tried to understand or address one of the main issues other posters are having. If you decide or are forced to "be flexible" with this build, such as having to make early zerglings, having to take gas, having to get early lair, etc, how are you compared economically to the other already established builds if they also are in the same conditions. You have not answered that sufficiently at all, so we kind of have to assume that you're doing worse than the established builds. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
Anyway, to the others reading this post, I will say that in my experience this build works great with gas if you get it before the hatchery and after the queen, and I believe this build does have the potential to be a standard.
On December 05 2010 11:21 dementrio wrote: today I went back to doing 15hatch after what seemed like a long time, and tbh I feel the difference in economy. with hatch first I am looking to take my 3rd much earlier than with any pool-first build. I think that I'll revert back to hatch first against toss because the only thing it is vulnerable to is cannon walls and that's easy to prevent; I also think it plays better versus toss' timing pushes.
Against terran I think that if I go pool first I also want quicker tech and I still have to find a build that feels smooth in that regard.
In zvz I feel like the very early game is so critical that it's hard to deviate from the "standard" builds out there. It's gonna be hard to put down a 18 hatch with no gas against speedling openings because soon after that you'll have banelings at your door... the 11overpool is a tad too late to consistently punish hatch first. Its true that its flexible, but the problem is that whatever the direction you choose to deviate in it will be less efficient than the boring build designed specifically for that, and in a mirror match this can easily cost you the game.
confirmation bias, placebo effect, take your pick here....
The only reason you feel the difference is because you are compelled to utilize the pool-first's capabilities for aggression. Play it like your double hatch and you'll be safer against cheese, and still sitting pretty economically.
ZvP - you are behind from the period your queen pops out and the 40 seconds afterwards. A 2 gate zealot rush comes before then. no creep near your natural, so no spine crawler, so easy ramp contain. If I know my opponent is going 2 gate zealot, I would not suggest using this. However, there is not enough time to scout this before a 11 pool, so a maybe overall. This build has a great time against 2 stalker rush, 4 gate, and other similiar openings however. ZvT - On paper yes definitely, but I'm holding off on saying always do this against terran because creep spread is so important in ZvT. So maybe as well, not due to economic reasons. The build has the most potential to be explored here.
One thing your not talking about, is the effect of scouting an 11 pool on your opponent. He will most definitily go into defensive mode, thinking 5RR or something. That is truly the strenght of this build IMO.
Also, you gotta understand OP. He wen througha lot of hassle testing shit loads of builds, and finds this one. And then half the people in the first part of the thread are like "no xxx is better". That would frustrate anyone!!
I think this build should really get a proper guide thread done though. Get back to work OP xP
kcdc thread met with plenty of "you're going to get rolled by 3 rax", but he never called anyone trolls.
Also, effect of scouting of 11 pool is just a temporary thing. If this gets known 11 pool rush and 11 pool 18 hatch can be scouted by counting the number of larva. if you see larva being pooled up, its a rush. as this build gets more well known, scouting a 11 pool wont have any effect.
On December 05 2010 20:43 GhostFall wrote: kcdc thread met with plenty of "you're going to get rolled by 3 rax", but he never called anyone trolls.
Also, effect of scouting of 11 pool is just a temporary thing. If this gets known 11 pool rush and 11 pool 18 hatch can be scouted by counting the number of larva. if you see larva being pooled up, its a rush. as this build gets more well known, scouting a 11 pool wont have any effect.
lol there isn't a person on TL who can go back and read this thread and say there are no trolls...
Anyway, I'm really eager for people to start posting replays! The more data and examples we can get with this build, the better we can make informed decisions!
Don't just say "I died to X," post it please, so we can all see for ourselves the strengths and weaknesses of this build. I personally have been trying to decide when to get gas in ZvZ... If I find my opponent is going 1-base, I am much better off delaying the expo quite a bit and getting an early overlord and extractor, so scouting the expansion timing is critical to playing correctly in ZvZ.
I have been trying this build on and off as I see fit. I only have one replay in my recent games of it and I am pretty sure I screwed up the build order. I faced a protoss going 3gate expo but instead decided to just go all in.
The build seems to have some potential, I still prefer my hatch first versus T and 14 gas 13 pool v Z but versus protoss I think it could be very good. However the main issues with hatch first versus protoss was cannon contain and pylon block that issue is addressed next patch so I am not sure what the exact niche of this build will be.
2100 zerg
edit:
Also all of you are talking about using your first larvae injects etc. I use the earlier queen to spread creep while building another queen. Your economy isn't good enough to support constant injections that early in the game and I also value having creep between my bases and all over the map the earlier you start the better. I generally use the 1st 50 energy from my queen on 2 creep tumors and by this time my 2nd queen and 2nd hatchery is done and I then start injection both hatcheries and droning hard.
When I hatch first I use the first 25 energy from both queens on creep tumors, so it works out pretty evenly with what I normally do.
It is a very good build indeed. I did try to find flows but there are none. I am not using it only because i am afraid of hatch being blocked and i like the early creep from hatch first. I am using what i sow in most of FruitDealer`s games:
10 OV 13 scout 15 Hatch 14 Pool
I love to go MB Lair BN Spire with 3Q and lots of lings after base saturation.
While testing the 11Pool it is like 3 seconds behind at 9min mark so nothing.
On December 06 2010 02:24 icezar wrote: It is a very good build indeed. I did try to find flows but there are none. I am not using it only because i am afraid of hatch being blocked and i like the early creep from hatch first. I am using what i sow in most of FruitDealer`s games:
10 OV 13 scout 15 Hatch 14 Pool
I love to go MB Lair BN Spire with 3Q and lots of lings after base saturation.
While testing the 11Pool it is like 3 seconds behind at 9min mark so nothing.
lol I always wanna ask the hatch-first crowd what league they are in so I can understand how they aren't dying every game. Hatch first is a guaranteed loss against a properly executed 2rax or ling all-in. Against toss I'm not sure since I haven't tried in a while. Not to mention your opponent will go for a hatch block in 85% of games in diamond today, forcing you to go pool-first anyways... If hatch first was viable then I wouldn't even be looking at this 11pool build.
I've done extensive testing on hatch first (without any proof on hand though)
From what I've tested, a cheese pool can be handled by drone micro and thus negligible
Beyond what is considered a Cheese pool, a 12 pool with 3 saved larva cannot sustain ling production to be a threat, and 6 lings can be handled by micro. a 13 pool with 3 saved larva can also be handled with queen + drone micro until two queens for ramp blocking which prevent any ling reinforcements going up the ramp after the first 8 lings. 14 pool is far too late and two queens will be able to sit on the ramp.
This is done on long distance with 14 hatch 14 pool. 15 hatch 15 pool is also possible (Machine/Idra ZvZ build), but I find it far riskier than 14/14
On December 06 2010 02:39 ktimekiller wrote: I've done extensive testing on hatch first (without any proof on hand though)
From what I've tested, a cheese pool can be handled by drone micro and thus negligible
Beyond what is considered a Cheese pool, a 12 pool with 3 saved larva cannot sustain ling production to be a threat, and 6 lings can be handled by micro. a 13 pool with 3 saved larva can also be handled with queen + drone micro until two queens for ramp blocking which prevent any ling reinforcements going up the ramp after the first 8 lings. 14 pool is far too late and two queens will be able to sit on the ramp.
This is done on long distance with 14 hatch 14 pool. 15 hatch 15 pool is also possible (Machine/Idra ZvZ build), but I find it far riskier than 14/14
I guarantee you if I go 11Pool 18Hatch all-in and you go hatch first, I will win 100% of my games. But you're gonna have to take my word for this unless you want to try it out
Take a look at the two ZvZ replays. Both times my opponents went hatch-first they didn't even come close to defending my all-in. I honestly don't think it is possible to defend.
On December 06 2010 02:24 icezar wrote: It is a very good build indeed. I did try to find flows but there are none. I am not using it only because i am afraid of hatch being blocked and i like the early creep from hatch first. I am using what i sow in most of FruitDealer`s games:
10 OV 13 scout 15 Hatch 14 Pool
I love to go MB Lair BN Spire with 3Q and lots of lings after base saturation.
While testing the 11Pool it is like 3 seconds behind at 9min mark so nothing.
lol I always wanna ask the hatch-first crowd what league they are in so I can understand how they aren't dying every game. Hatch first is a guaranteed loss against a properly executed 2rax or ling all-in. Against toss I'm not sure since I haven't tried in a while. Not to mention your opponent will go for a hatch block in 85% of games in diamond today, forcing you to go pool-first anyways... If hatch first was viable then I wouldn't even be looking at this 11pool build.
joke right?
Hatch first versus terran is still standard. I always go hatch first provided no close positions and its not steppes of war. I scout on 10 to find out if close positions or not.
Versus a 2 rax You simple have to pull drones to combat his SCVs while your lings attack his marines. It is still very dangerous but its not that difficult. Your 2 queens finish very quickly and if you start a spine crawler asap at your natural its very easy. I have not yet had trouble holding off 2 rax pressure. (2100 Diamond)
Hatch first versus zerg I don't do, and I would only hatch first versus protoss on cross positions or shakuras.
On December 06 2010 02:39 ktimekiller wrote: I've done extensive testing on hatch first (without any proof on hand though)
From what I've tested, a cheese pool can be handled by drone micro and thus negligible
Beyond what is considered a Cheese pool, a 12 pool with 3 saved larva cannot sustain ling production to be a threat, and 6 lings can be handled by micro. a 13 pool with 3 saved larva can also be handled with queen + drone micro until two queens for ramp blocking which prevent any ling reinforcements going up the ramp after the first 8 lings. 14 pool is far too late and two queens will be able to sit on the ramp.
This is done on long distance with 14 hatch 14 pool. 15 hatch 15 pool is also possible (Machine/Idra ZvZ build), but I find it far riskier than 14/14
I guarantee you if I go 11Pool 18Hatch all-in and you go hatch first, I will win 100% of my games. But you're gonna have to take my word for this unless you want to try it out
Take a look at the two ZvZ replays. Both times my opponents went hatch-first they didn't even come close to defending my all-in. I honestly don't think it is possible to defend.
Bad representation of how you hatch first against a lingbane all in
You need to put 2 spine the moment hatch finishes, and add several more.
Based on that the distance in Blistering sands is equivalent to a long distance of metalopolis and lost temple, the first push in the replay would have come as two queens are blocking the ramp with 4 spines + 8 or more lings at the natural
On December 06 2010 02:24 icezar wrote: It is a very good build indeed. I did try to find flows but there are none. I am not using it only because i am afraid of hatch being blocked and i like the early creep from hatch first. I am using what i sow in most of FruitDealer`s games:
10 OV 13 scout 15 Hatch 14 Pool
I love to go MB Lair BN Spire with 3Q and lots of lings after base saturation.
While testing the 11Pool it is like 3 seconds behind at 9min mark so nothing.
lol I always wanna ask the hatch-first crowd what league they are in so I can understand how they aren't dying every game. Hatch first is a guaranteed loss against a properly executed 2rax or ling all-in. Against toss I'm not sure since I haven't tried in a while. Not to mention your opponent will go for a hatch block in 85% of games in diamond today, forcing you to go pool-first anyways... If hatch first was viable then I wouldn't even be looking at this 11pool build.
Versus a 2 rax You simple have to pull drones to combat his SCVs while your lings attack his marines. It is still very dangerous but its not that difficult. Your 2 queens finish very quickly and if you start a spine crawler asap at your natural its very easy. I have not yet had trouble holding off 2 rax pressure. (2100 Diamond)
The 2rax itself isn't a problem, but you can't get enough units out to defend 2rax pressure -> expand -> 5rax timing. Or you might, but then your economy is awful and they'll just sit in their base until you try to take a third.
On December 06 2010 02:39 ktimekiller wrote: I've done extensive testing on hatch first (without any proof on hand though)
From what I've tested, a cheese pool can be handled by drone micro and thus negligible
Beyond what is considered a Cheese pool, a 12 pool with 3 saved larva cannot sustain ling production to be a threat, and 6 lings can be handled by micro. a 13 pool with 3 saved larva can also be handled with queen + drone micro until two queens for ramp blocking which prevent any ling reinforcements going up the ramp after the first 8 lings. 14 pool is far too late and two queens will be able to sit on the ramp.
This is done on long distance with 14 hatch 14 pool. 15 hatch 15 pool is also possible (Machine/Idra ZvZ build), but I find it far riskier than 14/14
I guarantee you if I go 11Pool 18Hatch all-in and you go hatch first, I will win 100% of my games. But you're gonna have to take my word for this unless you want to try it out
Take a look at the two ZvZ replays. Both times my opponents went hatch-first they didn't even come close to defending my all-in. I honestly don't think it is possible to defend.
Bad representation of how you hatch first against a lingbane all in
You need to put 2 spine the moment hatch finishes, and add several more.
Based on that the distance in Blistering sands is equivalent to a long distance of metalopolis and lost temple, the first push in the replay would have come as two queens are blocking the ramp with 4 spines + 8 or more lings at the natural
You really think you can go hatch first and still get 4 spines, 8 lings, and 2 queens before my 11pool lings reach your base?
Based on the time of the replay vs time of how a 14 hatch 14 pool has two queens 2 spines and 8 lings? Yes
In the replay, the lings first hit at the 6 minute mark.
For a 14 hatch 14 pool build, by 5 minutes, you can have 2 queens blocking a ramp, with 2 spines, and 8 lings
From the testing I've done, the EARLIEST a 3 larva pooled 13 pool 6 lings hit the base is at 4.25 min mark. At this EXACT point, 2 spines are building, with 2 queens building, and with lings in production. It is common knowledge that 6 lings cannot hold against well microed drones
this build has been great i have been using for the last few days. my favorite part is that if you get proxy'd or some sort of cheese you can just delay till the pressure is gone and you will never loose to cheese due to the 11 pool. Since this is new to i have found lots of protoss's throwing down forges and walling in thinking there is a 10 pool coming, this usually gives me such a great lead aswell. Thanks for this build
On December 05 2010 20:12 GhostFall wrote: Okey dokey.
So I spent the last 2 days trying out and testing your builds.
Here are my impressions. 14 Hatch, 15 Pool is still more economical. It is however, very comparable. If you go Extractor before 18 Hatchery, you can get speed around the same time as Hatchery first builds with comparable economy. If you go Extractor before the first queen, you get speed early, but your economy is actually worse than typical builds. If you go extractor after 18 Hatchery, your speed is around 20 seconds later, with comparable economy to 14 Hatch 15 Pool
The reason this build works is because you take an economic hit with 11 pool to get an earlier queen, who makes it up with an earlier larvae inject. So you are behind until your first larvae inject finishes. However, when that first larvae inject finishes you pull ahead because of how much faster your larvae inject is compared to other builds. If you delay your first queen at all, you are behind.
Essentially if you were making a guide the build should be cut down to this 10 Extractor trick 11 Overlord 11 Pool 16 Queen -----------------------Everything up to this point is completely inflexible. 18 Gas (optional but highly recommended) 18 Hatchery
How this has changed my matchups. ZvZ - heck yeah I'm changing to 11 pool -> queen. New standard in ZvZ for sure imo. ZvP - you are behind from the period your queen pops out and the 40 seconds afterwards. A 2 gate zealot rush comes before then. no creep near your natural, so no spine crawler, so easy ramp contain. If I know my opponent is going 2 gate zealot, I would not suggest using this. However, there is not enough time to scout this before a 11 pool, so a maybe overall. This build has a great time against 2 stalker rush, 4 gate, and other similiar openings however. ZvT - On paper yes definitely, but I'm holding off on saying always do this against terran because creep spread is so important in ZvT. So maybe as well, not due to economic reasons. The build has the most potential to be explored here.
I would also like to say to the OP, that while I am impressed overall with the build, you are doing a terrible job with this thread. Compared to kcdc PvT 1 Gate FE thread, you are ignoring valid questions and writing people off as trolls. kcdc was very correct when he said you are creating a hostile environment, and that is why you are facing such opposition. there are actually very few trolls in this entire thread. You continue to say how flexible this build is, and how everything looks great at the 5-6 minute mark. An economic 6 pool looks great at the 6 minute mark, so that doesn't answer anything. You post replays but you haven't really tried to understand or address one of the main issues other posters are having. If you decide or are forced to "be flexible" with this build, such as having to make early zerglings, having to take gas, having to get early lair, etc, how are you compared economically to the other already established builds if they also are in the same conditions. You have not answered that sufficiently at all, so we kind of have to assume that you're doing worse than the established builds. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
Anyway, to the others reading this post, I will say that in my experience this build works great with gas if you get it before the hatchery and after the queen, and I believe this build does have the potential to be a standard.
Are you sure he hasn't addressed the bulk of these points?
Unless you mean, he hasn't tested the build against other builds given other variables (like, if you gas steal, if you're forced to make lings, if you want to place a spine crawler early, etc etc). I'd agree with you; but I think these sorts of issues, we'll just have to play more to find out. We'd be introducing far too many variables to test, if we're trying to be scientific about it. Everyone would have slightly different results from doing the build differently, different opponents, etc, the results wouldn't be repeatable. Even with the simplified model we're working with now, people are still getting different results. With regards to this, we likely can only be approximate about it.
And when you say the 14 hatch, 15 pool (edit: corrected!) is more economical, I agree, and the OP would agree with you on this point also, as indicated in the thread linked. They are very comparable as you said, but with supposedly added flexibility/safety of an 11 pool.
That said, after testing the build out myself, I find that getting the extractor at 18 is about right to get ling speed in a reasonable amount of time. Agreed on the ZvZ, great build. Against P's and T's, I still prefer a 14 hatch, 15 pool whenever I can get away with it. Anyway enough talk, more play; see how it goes
On December 06 2010 04:40 flanksteak wrote: And when you say the 14 pool, 15 hatch is more economical, I agree, and the OP would agree with you on this point also, as indicated in the thread linked.
I'm assuming you meant to say 14hatch/15pool here? Cause if not, the OP wouldn't agree, and neither would I.
I'm looking for an alternative build to 14 hatch 15 pool against tosses that spawn in close positions. I think this would be good but I need to test it out against all sorts of builds. It does feel comfortable econmomically vs toss. Even when they FE.
On December 06 2010 02:39 ktimekiller wrote: I've done extensive testing on hatch first (without any proof on hand though)
From what I've tested, a cheese pool can be handled by drone micro and thus negligible
Beyond what is considered a Cheese pool, a 12 pool with 3 saved larva cannot sustain ling production to be a threat, and 6 lings can be handled by micro. a 13 pool with 3 saved larva can also be handled with queen + drone micro until two queens for ramp blocking which prevent any ling reinforcements going up the ramp after the first 8 lings. 14 pool is far too late and two queens will be able to sit on the ramp.
This is done on long distance with 14 hatch 14 pool. 15 hatch 15 pool is also possible (Machine/Idra ZvZ build), but I find it far riskier than 14/14
I guarantee you if I go 11Pool 18Hatch all-in and you go hatch first, I will win 100% of my games. But you're gonna have to take my word for this unless you want to try it out
Take a look at the two ZvZ replays. Both times my opponents went hatch-first they didn't even come close to defending my all-in. I honestly don't think it is possible to defend.
not trying to start a war or anything but i'd like to test it with you, i think hatch first is better.
As I said in a previous post, I think it is a little risky to put down the 18 Hatch if you are against a 1-base zerg. I have been trying to make it work however. It is certainly possible on maps that have a ramp that can be defended by a few roaches, allowing you to drone hard on two hatches.
I played this strat recently on the ladder, and it was fairly effective. Opponent opened speedling/baneling, which I held off with a few slowlings and roaches, and walled myself off. I am a very greedy zerg so I pumped tons of drones and took a slight risk against the coming mutas. Against fast mutas I like to distract them with a roach attack while I get spores and hydras in base.
Anyway, just wanted to provide some more food for thought. Here is the rep.
I've been having a lot of success with this build in general. I've won about 70% of my games since using it, and gained about 100 points on the diamond ladder. Hope you guys are having success as well.
On December 06 2010 02:39 ktimekiller wrote: I've done extensive testing on hatch first (without any proof on hand though)
From what I've tested, a cheese pool can be handled by drone micro and thus negligible
Beyond what is considered a Cheese pool, a 12 pool with 3 saved larva cannot sustain ling production to be a threat, and 6 lings can be handled by micro. a 13 pool with 3 saved larva can also be handled with queen + drone micro until two queens for ramp blocking which prevent any ling reinforcements going up the ramp after the first 8 lings. 14 pool is far too late and two queens will be able to sit on the ramp.
This is done on long distance with 14 hatch 14 pool. 15 hatch 15 pool is also possible (Machine/Idra ZvZ build), but I find it far riskier than 14/14
I guarantee you if I go 11Pool 18Hatch all-in and you go hatch first, I will win 100% of my games. But you're gonna have to take my word for this unless you want to try it out
Take a look at the two ZvZ replays. Both times my opponents went hatch-first they didn't even come close to defending my all-in. I honestly don't think it is possible to defend.
not trying to start a war or anything but i'd like to test it with you, i think hatch first is better.
AnAngryDingo 282 on NA
Sure. I will be busy today but maybe monday afternoon or evening we can practice.
On December 06 2010 04:40 flanksteak wrote: And when you say the 14 pool, 15 hatch is more economical, I agree, and the OP would agree with you on this point also, as indicated in the thread linked.
I'm assuming you meant to say 14hatch/15pool here? Cause if not, the OP wouldn't agree, and neither would I.
Woops, my bad. Yes that's what I meant, I've edited the post
On December 06 2010 02:24 icezar wrote: It is a very good build indeed. I did try to find flows but there are none. I am not using it only because i am afraid of hatch being blocked and i like the early creep from hatch first. I am using what i sow in most of FruitDealer`s games:
10 OV 13 scout 15 Hatch 14 Pool
I love to go MB Lair BN Spire with 3Q and lots of lings after base saturation.
While testing the 11Pool it is like 3 seconds behind at 9min mark so nothing.
lol I always wanna ask the hatch-first crowd what league they are in so I can understand how they aren't dying every game. Hatch first is a guaranteed loss against a properly executed 2rax or ling all-in. Against toss I'm not sure since I haven't tried in a while. Not to mention your opponent will go for a hatch block in 85% of games in diamond today, forcing you to go pool-first anyways... If hatch first was viable then I wouldn't even be looking at this 11pool build.
Versus a 2 rax You simple have to pull drones to combat his SCVs while your lings attack his marines. It is still very dangerous but its not that difficult. Your 2 queens finish very quickly and if you start a spine crawler asap at your natural its very easy. I have not yet had trouble holding off 2 rax pressure. (2100 Diamond)
The 2rax itself isn't a problem, but you can't get enough units out to defend 2rax pressure -> expand -> 5rax timing. Or you might, but then your economy is awful and they'll just sit in their base until you try to take a third.
what are you talking about defend 2 rax then expand? You have already expanded if you go 14 hatch which is what I was talking about.
14 hatch VS 2rax +scv pressure is not that difficult to hold off. And when the 5 rax gets to you, you should have spine crawlers and speedlings with bane speed on the way. Maybe other zergs need more practice dealing with 2rax scv pressure but I personally handle it without taking much if any economy lose usually. And then you can power drones for a good period of time. As long as your main is about saturated and you have both geysers and your expo has a decent amont of drones your economy is fine to handle it. You don't need that much gas to get ling speed/lair/bane speed and then banelings.
In fact facing 2 rax pressure I would prefer to have 14 hatched and not 18 hatched with 11 overpool. There is no danger of not being able to get your hatchery up and you have 2 queens and creep at your expo already.
On December 06 2010 02:02 MorsCerta wrote: I have been trying this build on and off as I see fit. I only have one replay in my recent games of it and I am pretty sure I screwed up the build order. I faced a protoss going 3gate expo but instead decided to just go all in.
The build seems to have some potential, I still prefer my hatch first versus T and 14 gas 13 pool v Z but versus protoss I think it could be very good. However the main issues with hatch first versus protoss was cannon contain and pylon block that issue is addressed next patch so I am not sure what the exact niche of this build will be.
2100 zerg
edit:
Also all of you are talking about using your first larvae injects etc. I use the earlier queen to spread creep while building another queen. Your economy isn't good enough to support constant injections that early in the game and I also value having creep between my bases and all over the map the earlier you start the better. I generally use the 1st 50 energy from my queen on 2 creep tumors and by this time my 2nd queen and 2nd hatchery is done and I then start injection both hatcheries and droning hard.
When I hatch first I use the first 25 energy from both queens on creep tumors, so it works out pretty evenly with what I normally do.
I have been doing 14h/14p a lot (not against z, and switched to 14p/16h against p) and I get my queens out at the same time, when doing this larvae inject w/ one and creap spread w/ the other and larvae spread w/ the one that did the tumor and vise versa. This evens out your larvae and still gives you the same creep abilities. As far as 14p 16h I would agree with making a tumor w/ first queen on its way to the nat and then using it again for a tumor at the nat while the main queen pukes. With the 11p/18h build I would use larvae first every time. The creep spread is nice but your scouting should tell you if he is going for a zealot rush (if he is on close positions consider replacing hatch w/ roach warren and trying to drone at same rate as P).
The problem with trying to create a build order around what the opponent is doing to the extreme is that your BO is going to be gimped. Try to get the most out of your build and then rely on your scouting, micro etc to bring you above your opponent. If you see 2 rax before gas then make lings after the 16 drone count and throw down 2 crawlers asap. While I don't have any replays atm to completely justify this response, I have played enough games w/ this build to say that you can always defend an early rush and still come out in the game.
On December 06 2010 02:24 icezar wrote: It is a very good build indeed. I did try to find flows but there are none. I am not using it only because i am afraid of hatch being blocked and i like the early creep from hatch first. I am using what i sow in most of FruitDealer`s games:
10 OV 13 scout 15 Hatch 14 Pool
I love to go MB Lair BN Spire with 3Q and lots of lings after base saturation.
While testing the 11Pool it is like 3 seconds behind at 9min mark so nothing.
lol I always wanna ask the hatch-first crowd what league they are in so I can understand how they aren't dying every game. Hatch first is a guaranteed loss against a properly executed 2rax or ling all-in. Against toss I'm not sure since I haven't tried in a while. Not to mention your opponent will go for a hatch block in 85% of games in diamond today, forcing you to go pool-first anyways... If hatch first was viable then I wouldn't even be looking at this 11pool build.
I don't know if I would say that it is always an auto loss. I think that after saturating your nat and losing the queen w/ drones it could be an auto loss. but if you know they are going for the 2 rax push w/ hatch first then you need to get 2 crawlers and start pumping lings. 2 queens, 2 crawlers and a stream of lings should defend 2 rax pushes adequately. Granted you will lose against 2 rax upwards of 50%+ (I don't know how much I lose to it, Prolly not 50% though).
This build is great. I tried it vs the high plat in my ladder. Having trouble vs P on Steppes, otherwise I've won every game. People that theorycraft should've keep their mouths shut, this is awesome. Thank you OP.
On December 06 2010 09:47 militantonZ wrote: This build is great. I tried it vs the high plat in my ladder. Having trouble vs P on Steppes, otherwise I've won every game. People that theorycraft should've keep their mouths shut, this is awesome. Thank you OP.
As some have pointed out, if you're in ridiculously close positions against toss or terran, you can always transition into a modified roach expand build or something
I hatch first every single game, and it might be that my opponents are just that much worse, but I rarely lose to 2 rax pressure. I have lost a couple games to mass lings, but a lot of times that's just poor spine crawler placement or I'm a little bit off on my timing with my build. Oh, I'm about 1800-1900 Diamond, I think.
I may not be executing the build properly, but I have a hell of a time defending that first wave of reactor hellions from someone doing a 1-1-1 or 1-1-2 build. Not having the extra creep at my natural makes it almost impossible to use queens and slow lings to defend. And I cannot get a crawler up fast enough at my natural so I can't even risk sending drones there and have to queen wall the ramp. Very frustrating...
Maybe someone has a replay of them doing better? I'm a 2100-2200d Zerg. Don't show replays of opponents who have sucky timing or poor micro... that isn't useful. That's like pretending you can hold a 2-rax simply because your opponent doesn't know how to micro and you kill him with a-move lings.
14 hatch VS 2rax +scv pressure is not that difficult to hold off.
You must be better than most of the zerg's in the GSL then...
or the terrans around 2100 don't marine/scv push as well as the terrans in the GSL?
or I am just better then 2100 (which I believe to be true since I have not plateaued at all) and I am better than the terrans I am facing.
I am sure there may be a point where 2 rax scv pressure gets more difficult but I have not yet lost to it. And considering I always 14 hatch provided cross positions or a good map I have faced quite a few of these pushes. I find it much more difficult to hold off the double bunker blocking ramp, which I believe is getting nerfed next patch along with pylon block.
14 hatch VS 2rax +scv pressure is not that difficult to hold off.
You must be better than most of the zerg's in the GSL then...
or the terrans around 2100 don't marine/scv push as well as the terrans in the GSL?
or I am just better then 2100 (which I believe to be true since I have not plateaued at all) and I am better than the terrans I am facing.
I am sure there may be a point where 2 rax scv pressure gets more difficult but I have not yet lost to it. And considering I always 14 hatch provided cross positions or a good map I have faced quite a few of these pushes. I find it much more difficult to hold off the double bunker blocking ramp, which I believe is getting nerfed next patch along with pylon block.
Well, if you know it is your skill level beating your opponent and not your build order, then maybe you shouldn't make universal claims about how easy it is to beat X -- unless this is your blog, of course. I could beat bronze foxer wannabes with just workers, but I wouldn't go into a thread claiming that you don't need a pool to beat 2-rax.
I like the flexibility of this build quite a bit. It transitions to a number of all-ins quite easily, and doesn't deprive you of a macro game either. I have yet to play a game where I felt like this BO is flatly the reason I lost. The case has always been my macro, micro, or decision making.
good economy build but I really don't like it. Speedling build is just superior, you delay your expansion until around 21 but you gain map control and scouting which is key. Is the build viable? Sure. But will it become standard? probably not.
On December 06 2010 21:16 emc wrote: good economy build but I really don't like it. Speedling build is just superior, you delay your expansion until around 21 but you gain map control and scouting which is key. Is the build viable? Sure. But will it become standard? probably not.
There is no reason you can't get speed whenever you want with this build. To satisfy such criticisms I even posted a game where I went 11 Pool 14 Gas and got zergling speed almost a full minute before my 15 Hatch opponent.
So why not think of this as a speedling build which is both faster and more economical?
14 hatch VS 2rax +scv pressure is not that difficult to hold off.
You must be better than most of the zerg's in the GSL then...
or the terrans around 2100 don't marine/scv push as well as the terrans in the GSL?
or I am just better then 2100 (which I believe to be true since I have not plateaued at all) and I am better than the terrans I am facing.
I am sure there may be a point where 2 rax scv pressure gets more difficult but I have not yet lost to it. And considering I always 14 hatch provided cross positions or a good map I have faced quite a few of these pushes. I find it much more difficult to hold off the double bunker blocking ramp, which I believe is getting nerfed next patch along with pylon block.
Well, if you know it is your skill level beating your opponent and not your build order, then maybe you shouldn't make universal claims about how easy it is to beat X -- unless this is your blog, of course. I could beat bronze foxer wannabes with just workers, but I wouldn't go into a thread claiming that you don't need a pool to beat 2-rax.
I like the flexibility of this build quite a bit. It transitions to a number of all-ins quite easily, and doesn't deprive you of a macro game either. I have yet to play a game where I felt like this BO is flatly the reason I lost. The case has always been my macro, micro, or decision making.
I don't know this for a fact, I was making suggestions as to why I find it easy to deflect the 2 rax pressure. Never claimed I was better then the zergs in the GSL or that 2 rax pressure can never be difficult to hold off. Simply that I, myself, only me, have never had trouble holding it off. So for me, personally, I do not see 2 rax pressure as a reason to switch to the 11 overpool build.
Or perhaps its that I only 14 hatch on cross positions or favorable maps that I have much better success.
Also never claimed you didnt need a pool to be 2 rax, not sure where your getting that from. A 14 hatch pool finishes before a 2 rax push gets to your base provided it isn't close positions (recurring theme?) Zerglings take only 24 seconds to produce and proper micro from the zerg using drones, zerglings and your queen can deflect 2 rax pressure with minimal losses. Do you sidagree?
And bronze foxer wannabes are probably worse then the ones I am facing at the 2100D level.
The only reason I even brought up this is because I do not think 2 rax pressure being part of the meta game is sufficient enough reason to not go 14 hatch. I do however think 11overpool has a place against protoss. If you happened to read my post on it.
I have been trying extractor trick 11 pool 10 overlord instead of the over 10 pool listed in this thread. Is this a big detriment to income? I think this build is very flexible if you can scout early because you can choose to make lings or drones. But Idk, can you crunch the numbers pls?
Sorry, just wanted to ask a couple of questions since I had been doing something of a variant with this build..
I was doing 10 extractor trick 11 pool 10 extractor (cancel again if short rush distance map) 11 overlord 3 drones when Ovie pops 14 queen
Are you sure this is not the better build? It feels a lot smoother than yours (all larvae/minerals are instantly used) and gets an earlier Queen (though I have not tested whether it is actually better).
EDIT: Derp, some guy posted nearly the same thing two posts above me.
Could we get a test maybe(I would do it, but don't have access to my SC2 machine)?
Hey I'm a new member to site as well as new to Zerg, transitioned from Terran a week ago. Just a low level Gold player who enjoys playing with my friends, and in my limited time with Zerg I've found several BO's and stumbled upon this one. My only question/concern with the build (which I have tried now) is when is the best time to get gas? I know you want a flexible build but I feel like this build forces you to either apply pressure with the early lings or defend your expo with them, both of which would benefit greatly from speedling research (right?). So I have 2 questions I guess.
1) Have you found any point in the BO where building the extractor causes the least amount of mineral loss (delaying expo, etc.) 2) If not, under what circumstances would it be better to wait or build the extractor early?
On December 07 2010 07:52 crazycarl1 wrote: Hey I'm a new member to site as well as new to Zerg, transitioned from Terran a week ago. Just a low level Gold player who enjoys playing with my friends, and in my limited time with Zerg I've found several BO's and stumbled upon this one. My only question/concern with the build (which I have tried now) is when is the best time to get gas? I know you want a flexible build but I feel like this build forces you to either apply pressure with the early lings or defend your expo with them, both of which would benefit greatly from speedling research (right?). So I have 2 questions I guess.
1) Have you found any point in the BO where building the extractor causes the least amount of mineral loss (delaying expo, etc.) 2) If not, under what circumstances would it be better to wait or build the extractor early?
You have to remember that this is just an opening designed for maximum economic viability, and does not take into consideration what the other guy is doing. You should be building lings and making judgment calls as to when you want to expand, take your gas, etc.
On December 06 2010 21:16 emc wrote: good economy build but I really don't like it. Speedling build is just superior, you delay your expansion until around 21 but you gain map control and scouting which is key. Is the build viable? Sure. But will it become standard? probably not.
There is no reason you can't get speed whenever you want with this build. To satisfy such criticisms I even posted a game where I went 11 Pool 14 Gas and got zergling speed almost a full minute before my 15 Hatch opponent.
So why not think of this as a speedling build which is both faster and more economical?
Ugh the moment you add a early gas in to this build it gets less economical then a regular speedling build... You completely act all the time like changing stuff like scouting, making more lings or whatever is equal for any build but it is NOT. This build catches up and surpasses some other builds if and only if it is allowed to drone freely (as it cuts early eco a slight bit to get better a slight bit later on). As far as a speedling build goes this is far worse then the regular 14 gas 14 pool as by putting in gas it's later for getting speedlings and the geyser and putting drones to gas come at a less opportune time.
please STOP acting like this build can do almost anything more efficient then other builds because it does NOT.
It's a good build if you want to go fast pool and have the option of both economical play or early aggresion play (which admittedly is quite good). In that sense it's alot like a regular 14 pool but slightly earlier pool and slightly worse economy. Adaptations, like getting a early spine or getting early gas are simply much worse with this build then more regular builds because you get larvae injects so early... If you don't have the money to fully use your first larvae inject this build is just strictly worse then a later pool build....
I can't stand the level of arrogance in this thread really.
Of course you can acuse me and others of being a troll again or whatever easy way out you want again but so far most posts have just been stupid.
This build catches up and surpasses some other builds if and only if it is allowed to drone freely (as it cuts early eco a slight bit to get better a slight bit later on).
This assumption that has been repeated several times and corrected by me several times is where the flaw in everyone's thinking is...
Your statement is simply and provably not true. Period.
This is why I went to all the trouble of meticulously testing and even posting the results into graphs from the 30 second mark to 6 minutes, so I could stop hearing people repeat false claims such as these.
Any build that gets gas will sacrifice the exact same number of drones and minerals to get it. There is nothing specific to one build that somehow causes 1 drone or 25 minerals to somehow be worth more than in another at the same point in time. If this is actually your claim, then certainly it is on you to provide some evidence instead of blindly asserting things that many of us would disagree about.
On December 07 2010 04:20 GenesisX wrote: I have been trying extractor trick 11 pool 10 overlord instead of the over 10 pool listed in this thread. Is this a big detriment to income? I think this build is very flexible if you can scout early because you can choose to make lings or drones. But Idk, can you crunch the numbers pls?
If you take a look at the OP, there is a link with data on many different builds.
From the testing I did, straight 10pool-overlord type builds were among the worst economically. So much larvae and mining time is lost waiting to get the overlord out. The overlord BEFORE pool seems to be the real critical difference in allowing the build to be as economical as it is, because you can drone freely while waiting for the pool to complete.
I would highly recommend that whatever variations you make on this build, you ensure your overlord is before your pool to prevent economic inefficiency.
Ugh how retarded is it to think that gas/scouting/making lings has the same amount of impact on every build.... This has been proven tons of times in thread before already all of which you chose to casually ignore.
A build is only efficient if it uses or nearly uses all of it's larvae.. To do so you need to have the cash to make something with that larvae. A build that has less larvae but slightly more economy will have less problems to have enough cash to use all that larvae if there is for some reason slightly less income or slightly more expenses then normal (such as gas or lings can cause). A build however that is perfectly timed to use all its minerals on drones and have less early economy and more larvae like your build simply CANT do that as easily. Ie scouting etc. affects your build more then others.....
On December 07 2010 07:52 crazycarl1 wrote: Hey I'm a new member to site as well as new to Zerg, transitioned from Terran a week ago. Just a low level Gold player who enjoys playing with my friends, and in my limited time with Zerg I've found several BO's and stumbled upon this one. My only question/concern with the build (which I have tried now) is when is the best time to get gas? I know you want a flexible build but I feel like this build forces you to either apply pressure with the early lings or defend your expo with them, both of which would benefit greatly from speedling research (right?). So I have 2 questions I guess.
1) Have you found any point in the BO where building the extractor causes the least amount of mineral loss (delaying expo, etc.) 2) If not, under what circumstances would it be better to wait or build the extractor early?
The decision when to get gas I think would depend a lot on your style. I personally go for very early gas in ZvZ, around 11Pool 14Gas with a slightly delayed expo. Getting ling speed or roaches early in ZvZ is absolutely critical imo. Against Terran and Toss I usually wait until I get the 18 Hatch down before I go for gas.
If I find my opponent trying to hatch block, I usually go for gas immediately, since you will likely stockpile some minerals while getting lings out anyways. Hope this helps.
A build however that is perfectly timed to use all its minerals on drones and have less early economy and more larvae like your build
Did you even read my post? You are still claiming this build has less early economy and more larvae. This is why your argument is wrong. And calling people "retarded" is really inappropriate.
Sorry to post this again, but jdseemoreglass and others adapting this build, at what time do you find best to scout? I was discussing this with Skarg the other day as well.
I'm thinking about scouting at 12. The first drone that comes out after you made pool and overlord.
Not scouting however can end the game if your opponent does some early push.
On December 07 2010 09:14 genopath wrote: Sorry to post this again, but jdseemoreglass and others adapting this build, at what time do you find best to scout? I was discussing this with Skarg the other day as well.
I'm thinking about scouting at 12. The first drone that comes out after you made pool and overlord.
Not scouting however can end the game if your opponent does some early push.
To be honest, I would recommend you guys avoid getting in the habit of seeking cookie-cutter solutions to issues such as these. The answer to these types of questions is almost always "It depends."
On scrap station I never scout with a drone. My overlord can do that.
On Lost Temple against Terran, I will wait for my overlord to check the close air position, and then send a drone once I see my opponent isn't there.
On Steppes against Zerg, I will scout at 9 supply just to be fully prepared for any 6/7pool cheese.
Every situation is different, so I can't really answer these questions substantively. If you aren't at a skill level yet where you can assess these things, then by all means simply pick a supply number like 12 and then adjust if you find yourself getting too little or too late information.
I have a question. If you do the extractor trick make a drone and then an overlord, will it be possible to transition to a 14 hatch build without it ruining your economy? I ask because I will 11 overpool if he spawns in close positions but I will go to 14 hatch if he spawns cross positions. I imagine waiting for that overlord to pop out just crushes your economy early on though....
ETA: Tested it myself. Doing 9 overlord gives you a temporary mineral boost of 100. Also the spawning pool finishes about 3 seconds faster. This may be significant but maybe not as significant in zvp when you're 4 hatching. So I'm comfortable opening this way on medium sized 4 player maps.
On December 06 2010 21:16 emc wrote: good economy build but I really don't like it. Speedling build is just superior, you delay your expansion until around 21 but you gain map control and scouting which is key. Is the build viable? Sure. But will it become standard? probably not.
There is no reason you can't get speed whenever you want with this build. To satisfy such criticisms I even posted a game where I went 11 Pool 14 Gas and got zergling speed almost a full minute before my 15 Hatch opponent.
So why not think of this as a speedling build which is both faster and more economical?
Ugh the moment you add a early gas in to this build it gets less economical then a regular speedling build... You completely act all the time like changing stuff like scouting, making more lings or whatever is equal for any build but it is NOT. This build catches up and surpasses some other builds if and only if it is allowed to drone freely (as it cuts early eco a slight bit to get better a slight bit later on). As far as a speedling build goes this is far worse then the regular 14 gas 14 pool as by putting in gas it's later for getting speedlings and the geyser and putting drones to gas come at a less opportune time.
please STOP acting like this build can do almost anything more efficient then other builds because it does NOT.
It's a good build if you want to go fast pool and have the option of both economical play or early aggresion play (which admittedly is quite good). In that sense it's alot like a regular 14 pool but slightly earlier pool and slightly worse economy. Adaptations, like getting a early spine or getting early gas are simply much worse with this build then more regular builds because you get larvae injects so early... If you don't have the money to fully use your first larvae inject this build is just strictly worse then a later pool build....
I can't stand the level of arrogance in this thread really.
Of course you can acuse me and others of being a troll again or whatever easy way out you want again but so far most posts have just been stupid.
I think this is sort of a strawman argument. The queen gets started at 16 supply, at which point you're at 2 drones/mineral patch saturation in your main. By the time your queen finishes, injects, and the injection pops, you're past the point where minerals are limiting growth. In my experience you're worried about larva and early pressure, and hoping to get some drones over to an expansion for a drones/patch <= 2 saturation again.
There's some flexibility with the second queen timing and the 18 hatch as well. If you failed to stop a bunker block, spines + roach warren are available without cutting into minerals available for drone production.
On December 07 2010 10:53 shane_danger16 wrote: seems like early 2gate stalker would severly punish this build withough speed anywhere in sight
Not true. I've been getting my gas immediately upon pool completion which lets you get a queen and a set of lings, putting you at 18/18. You get gas just in time to deny 2-gate stalker assuming you put guys on the geyser immediately when it pops and start speed right at 100 gas.
You'll have to engage the two stalkers very briefly with non-speed lings, but speed kicks in at a sufficient time that you can snipe them both with minimal losses.
I've been doing 11-pool almost exclusively in ZvP and ZvZ of recent with very good results.
I still feel 14h/15p is superior vs Terran in almost every situation. Against Terran you are more limited by creep spread and getting a spine at your natural than you are faster zerglings or a faster queen.
Wow some of you really need to read the OP's well written, well supported, well detailed post.
@shane_danger16
It's just a general BO, it's not saying "DON'T GET SPEED FOR THIS BUILD, NOPE NEVER!" If you want speed, then make an extractor and put 3 drones into it. No problem there.
@people making random claims
Cmon, seriously! Look at the OP's post. He even has a graph. And plus, probably dozens of posts within this thread. Stop trying to tear him apart. He's already supported himself and proved that his BO is X or Y. Sure of course there will be situations where it's not as good as a different BO, but he's definitely backed up what he says the BO can do with data.
Thanks once again for your work! And it's nice to see the OP even has a graph now since the last time I visited this thread =D
The evidence is enough for me, I'm satisfied that 11pool > hatch first. I'll even add that throwing in lings/gas/scouting would make the 11pool a LARGER favorite vs a hatch first, by reducing the impact of oversaturation.
The one advantage of hatch first is that it gets up creep at the expo faster, which might be important for spines and movement speed. Are there builds (2rax, zlot rush for example) where the fast expo creep is a necessity? Or can the 11pool defend those just as well or better?
Im at 1600 plat player. Been using this strat for the last week or so while experimenting with massive bane/sling drops at about the 10 min mark. It's been working really well. Drone up and defend 3rd hatch in main early ovie upgrades. This has been highly successful against terrans and even zerg to lesser extent. Protoss it's a little hit or miss. Seems like banelings aren't as effective against P BUT if you doom drop the main.. It usually throws them into a defensive mindset.. allowing you to expand.. if they counter attack you should have a ton of larve ready.. I've also been making a lot of static defenses because the economy of this build IS very good. Is the OP said this BO is easily adaptable to almost all strategies.
On December 07 2010 12:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow some of you really need to read the OP's well written, well supported, well detailed post.
@shane_danger16
It's just a general BO, it's not saying "DON'T GET SPEED FOR THIS BUILD, NOPE NEVER!" If you want speed, then make an extractor and put 3 drones into it. No problem there.
@people making random claims
Cmon, seriously! Look at the OP's post. He even has a graph. And plus, probably dozens of posts within this thread. Stop trying to tear him apart. He's already supported himself and proved that his BO is X or Y. Sure of course there will be situations where it's not as good as a different BO, but he's definitely backed up what he says the BO can do with data.
Thanks once again for your work! And it's nice to see the OP even has a graph now since the last time I visited this thread =D
random claims?
The claim is that:
If an extractor is added early (before your 18 expo), the economy hit will be greater than that of a 14hatch/15pool build. Which is really common sense, so you need to either delay your ling speed or delay your expo further (or cut units.)
And saying, omg he even has a graph! is pointless. He compared the graph to a build that is not standard. Compare it to 14 hatch/14-15 Pool, which is by all accounts the most standard zerg opening.
The blind following is as equally bad as blind criticism.
Is it clear whether 11 Overpool gains or loses more from fast gas than a normal hatch-pool build? You'd be delaying your hatchery, which is significant, but you'd also be delaying saturation since gassing takes 4 drones (3 + 1 for extractor).
Early lings are clearly an edge for the Overpool build since hatch-pool builds can't produce early lings at all.
It seems like the primary drawbacks of Overpool are delayed nat creep, and delayed access to the nat's mineral patches if you're allowed to drone hard.
on a sidenote i've checked the graph in the OP and found it to be slightly off actually by about 10-15 minerals for myself. THis is probably due to the fact that the measuring method of the OP checks resources mined or the amount of resources left at the mineral patches while an extractor trick effectively makes resources dissapear. Thus if you measure resources by checking minerals left in the patch you will consistently be measuring higher then what you actually have.
This combined with the fact that the build from the OP is highly dependant on a very clean execution, ie. you have 6 secs of wasting larvae with a perfect execution but more with a slightly less perfect execution, means that in my own (short) testing of the build i found a 'normal' 9 OV build to be up about 30-50 minerals in practice to this build.
Also with regard to the point that by the time the queen finishes minerals are no longer the limiting factor but larvae is, that is simply nonsense. Minerals are the limiting factor for a long time with zerg as by the time your inject finishes you're also in need of gas, just gotten a 2nd hatchery, building a 2nd queen, needing to make an overlord, making zerglings etc. Minerals ARE the restricting factor to proper zerg play (there are just tons of ways to effectively spend them without using more larvae early on) which makes this build slightly less effective then other builds when it comes to a real game (where you need a combination of economy and army)...
Still I like the build a fair bit for ZvP on 2 player maps. WIth overlord scouting and access to early lings you don't need to scout fast and the money you save by not scouting while at the same time putting P off their ideal build order is worth more then a regular build. Also I do think this build is the most effective build for cleaning a fast hatch block (ie when you can't get up a 14 hatch which is generally the case in ZvP on 2p maps). In ZvT this build still stinks and in for ZvZ I think it's quite good but i'm not familiar enough with the matchup to say so.
On December 07 2010 16:44 ktimekiller wrote: I think it would be more valid if the 11 pool 18 hatch was compared to more reasonable and standard openings other than 13 pool 15 hatch.
Perhaps a graph on 14 hatch 14 pool comparison?
If you actually read the OP, you would see the economy was discussed in the posted thread link. Here is a graph from that same link, with comparison to a 14 Hatch build...
I love the flexibility of this build along with the confusion it can sometimes cause the enemy.
2300pt diamond zerg and I just did this build on Shakuras where I would normally hatch first. Needless to say I was very pleased with this build when I scouted a proxy 2 gate
The guy cursed me out and called me a hacker saying "Who goes pool first on this map?... a hacker"
On December 08 2010 01:17 Markwerf wrote: on a sidenote i've checked the graph in the OP and found it to be slightly off actually by about 10-15 minerals for myself. THis is probably due to the fact that the measuring method of the OP checks resources mined or the amount of resources left at the mineral patches while an extractor trick effectively makes resources dissapear. Thus if you measure resources by checking minerals left in the patch you will consistently be measuring higher then what you actually have.
Actually my method for measuring resources is by adding the "Resources Spent" tab with current minerals. The reason that measuring minerals left on a patch has slightly higher results is because this will include minerals which are still in transit and have not yet been received at the hatchery.
On December 08 2010 08:06 Mutarisk wrote: I love the flexibility of this build along with the confusion it can sometimes cause the enemy.
2300pt diamond zerg and I just did this build on Shakuras where I would normally hatch first. Needless to say I was very pleased with this build when I scouted a proxy 2 gate
The guy cursed me out and called me a hacker saying "Who goes pool first on this map?... a hacker"
Metagame winners... pssshhhh
Yes, I have had things happen to me recently like that as well. On scrap station for example, where everyone simply expects zerg to hatch first, I have seen people proxy barracks and proxy gate. Needless to say those are nice free wins.
But my favorite part is when a player goes hatch first in ZvZ... In the past I never could really kill it outright with a 14 pool, I had to try to play catch-up in economy. This build solves the problem entirely by allowing enough aggression to get a win in these cases.
On December 08 2010 08:25 Sclol wrote: could you provide us with a timing to get lingspeed out before hellions arrive thanks
Maybe you could open up a custom game, rush to hellions, and write down the game clock to see the fastest hellions can be built. Then open another custom game getting ling speed and adjusting the timing to match the hellion timing. Then come post the timing so that others can benefit.
TL is a community, and I think we should collaborate on providing quality threads instead of just requesting that the OP keep providing results for everyone who is too lazy to figure these things out for themselves.
On December 08 2010 08:25 Sclol wrote: could you provide us with a timing to get lingspeed out before hellions arrive thanks
Maybe you could open up a custom game, rush to hellions, and write down the game clock to see the fastest hellions can be built. Then open another custom game getting ling speed and adjusting the timing to match the hellion timing. Then come post the timing so that others can benefit.
TL is a community, and I think we should collaborate on providing quality threads instead of just requesting that the OP keep providing results for everyone who is too lazy to figure these things out for themselves.
Fast reactor hellions pop out right around the 5:00 mark in my tests.
On December 08 2010 08:25 Sclol wrote: could you provide us with a timing to get lingspeed out before hellions arrive thanks
Maybe you could open up a custom game, rush to hellions, and write down the game clock to see the fastest hellions can be built. Then open another custom game getting ling speed and adjusting the timing to match the hellion timing. Then come post the timing so that others can benefit.
TL is a community, and I think we should collaborate on providing quality threads instead of just requesting that the OP keep providing results for everyone who is too lazy to figure these things out for themselves.
Fast reactor hellions pop out right around the 5:00 mark in my tests.
So, if the hatch FINISHES at 4:44 as stated in the OP, then I'm guessing we could get our extractor shortly after placing the 18 hatch and have enough time to get ling speed finished before the hellions are likely to arrive after 5:00. I've been getting my gas after the 18 Hatch in all my ZvT ZvP games and haven't encountered a problem yet.
On December 07 2010 12:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow some of you really need to read the OP's well written, well supported, well detailed post.
@shane_danger16
It's just a general BO, it's not saying "DON'T GET SPEED FOR THIS BUILD, NOPE NEVER!" If you want speed, then make an extractor and put 3 drones into it. No problem there.
@people making random claims
Cmon, seriously! Look at the OP's post. He even has a graph. And plus, probably dozens of posts within this thread. Stop trying to tear him apart. He's already supported himself and proved that his BO is X or Y. Sure of course there will be situations where it's not as good as a different BO, but he's definitely backed up what he says the BO can do with data.
Thanks once again for your work! And it's nice to see the OP even has a graph now since the last time I visited this thread =D
random claims?
The claim is that:
If an extractor is added early (before your 18 expo), the economy hit will be greater than that of a 14hatch/15pool build. Which is really common sense, so you need to either delay your ling speed or delay your expo further (or cut units.)
And saying, omg he even has a graph! is pointless. He compared the graph to a build that is not standard. Compare it to 14 hatch/14-15 Pool, which is by all accounts the most standard zerg opening.
The blind following is as equally bad as blind criticism.
Why would you econ hit of the extractor be bigger on the 11 overpool/18 hatch than on the 14 hatch/15 pool build and why do you claim it's "common sense"? To be sure you would have to test a 14 hatch/15pool/14 extractor against an 11 overpool/17 extractor/18 hatch, which both yield ling speed at around 06:00. I sincerely doubt this will change the conclusions of the OP.
On December 07 2010 12:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow some of you really need to read the OP's well written, well supported, well detailed post.
@shane_danger16
It's just a general BO, it's not saying "DON'T GET SPEED FOR THIS BUILD, NOPE NEVER!" If you want speed, then make an extractor and put 3 drones into it. No problem there.
@people making random claims
Cmon, seriously! Look at the OP's post. He even has a graph. And plus, probably dozens of posts within this thread. Stop trying to tear him apart. He's already supported himself and proved that his BO is X or Y. Sure of course there will be situations where it's not as good as a different BO, but he's definitely backed up what he says the BO can do with data.
Thanks once again for your work! And it's nice to see the OP even has a graph now since the last time I visited this thread =D
random claims?
The claim is that:
If an extractor is added early (before your 18 expo), the economy hit will be greater than that of a 14hatch/15pool build. Which is really common sense, so you need to either delay your ling speed or delay your expo further (or cut units.)
And saying, omg he even has a graph! is pointless. He compared the graph to a build that is not standard. Compare it to 14 hatch/14-15 Pool, which is by all accounts the most standard zerg opening.
The blind following is as equally bad as blind criticism.
Why would you econ hit of the extractor be bigger on the 11 overpool/18 hatch than on the 14 hatch/15 pool build and why do you claim it's "common sense"? To be sure you would have to test a 14 hatch/15pool/14 extractor against an 11 overpool/17 extractor/18 hatch, which both yield ling speed at around 06:00. I sincerely doubt this will change the conclusions of the OP.
Every single person who has stated that gas will affect this build more than another always ends up justifying it by claiming that this build "sacrifices early economy" in some way.
It is simply the after-affect of people thinking for so long that early pools were less economical. They simply can't get the idea out of their head fully. They assume SOMETHING must be worse if they are getting things earlier than they normally do.
People just have to get used to the idea that their past conceptions were wrong. Changing their convictions is more difficult and takes more time for some people than for others.
On December 08 2010 08:06 Mutarisk wrote: I love the flexibility of this build along with the confusion it can sometimes cause the enemy.
2300pt diamond zerg and I just did this build on Shakuras where I would normally hatch first. Needless to say I was very pleased with this build when I scouted a proxy 2 gate
The guy cursed me out and called me a hacker saying "Who goes pool first on this map?... a hacker"
Metagame winners... pssshhhh
Yes, I have had things happen to me recently like that as well. On scrap station for example, where everyone simply expects zerg to hatch first, I have seen people proxy barracks and proxy gate. Needless to say those are nice free wins.
But my favorite part is when a player goes hatch first in ZvZ... In the past I never could really kill it outright with a 14 pool, I had to try to play catch-up in economy. This build solves the problem entirely by allowing enough aggression to get a win in these cases.
Oh I crushed quite a few of those with 14 pool. The trick is to lay a spine at his natural expo's creep with your scouter, then just keep rallying in the lings.
On December 07 2010 12:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow some of you really need to read the OP's well written, well supported, well detailed post.
@shane_danger16
It's just a general BO, it's not saying "DON'T GET SPEED FOR THIS BUILD, NOPE NEVER!" If you want speed, then make an extractor and put 3 drones into it. No problem there.
@people making random claims
Cmon, seriously! Look at the OP's post. He even has a graph. And plus, probably dozens of posts within this thread. Stop trying to tear him apart. He's already supported himself and proved that his BO is X or Y. Sure of course there will be situations where it's not as good as a different BO, but he's definitely backed up what he says the BO can do with data.
Thanks once again for your work! And it's nice to see the OP even has a graph now since the last time I visited this thread =D
random claims?
The claim is that:
If an extractor is added early (before your 18 expo), the economy hit will be greater than that of a 14hatch/15pool build. Which is really common sense, so you need to either delay your ling speed or delay your expo further (or cut units.)
And saying, omg he even has a graph! is pointless. He compared the graph to a build that is not standard. Compare it to 14 hatch/14-15 Pool, which is by all accounts the most standard zerg opening.
The blind following is as equally bad as blind criticism.
Why would you econ hit of the extractor be bigger on the 11 overpool/18 hatch than on the 14 hatch/15 pool build and why do you claim it's "common sense"? To be sure you would have to test a 14 hatch/15pool/14 extractor against an 11 overpool/17 extractor/18 hatch, which both yield ling speed at around 06:00. I sincerely doubt this will change the conclusions of the OP.
Every single person who has stated that gas will affect this build more than another always ends up justifying it by claiming that this build "sacrifices early economy" in some way.
It is simply the after-affect of people thinking for so long that early pools were less economical. They simply can't get the idea out of their head fully. They assume SOMETHING must be worse if they are getting things earlier than they normally do.
People just have to get used to the idea that their past conceptions were wrong. Changing their convictions is more difficult and takes more time for some people than for others.
hehe yeah agreed completely. That early queen is a life saver.
Originally, hatch is the only way to generate larvae, but by getting pool first, we get queen fast as well, therefore it's good economically.
On December 07 2010 12:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow some of you really need to read the OP's well written, well supported, well detailed post.
@shane_danger16
It's just a general BO, it's not saying "DON'T GET SPEED FOR THIS BUILD, NOPE NEVER!" If you want speed, then make an extractor and put 3 drones into it. No problem there.
@people making random claims
Cmon, seriously! Look at the OP's post. He even has a graph. And plus, probably dozens of posts within this thread. Stop trying to tear him apart. He's already supported himself and proved that his BO is X or Y. Sure of course there will be situations where it's not as good as a different BO, but he's definitely backed up what he says the BO can do with data.
Thanks once again for your work! And it's nice to see the OP even has a graph now since the last time I visited this thread =D
random claims?
The claim is that:
If an extractor is added early (before your 18 expo), the economy hit will be greater than that of a 14hatch/15pool build. Which is really common sense, so you need to either delay your ling speed or delay your expo further (or cut units.)
And saying, omg he even has a graph! is pointless. He compared the graph to a build that is not standard. Compare it to 14 hatch/14-15 Pool, which is by all accounts the most standard zerg opening.
The blind following is as equally bad as blind criticism.
Why would you econ hit of the extractor be bigger on the 11 overpool/18 hatch than on the 14 hatch/15 pool build and why do you claim it's "common sense"? To be sure you would have to test a 14 hatch/15pool/14 extractor against an 11 overpool/17 extractor/18 hatch, which both yield ling speed at around 06:00. I sincerely doubt this will change the conclusions of the OP.
Yeah your right, producing drones out of 2 hatcheries while getting gas would be equal to producing drones out of one hatchery while getting gas. And mining off of 2 bases while getting gas is equal to mining off of 1 base while getting gas.
And the build order has you building an overlord at 17, when your hatchery is placed, and 18 immediately following your previous overlord. So thats 550 minerals within 1 supply of each other while you have only 15 drones mining (2 supply for queen) not to mention this is not including 1 supply for some scouting lings which every zerg has outside their opponents base, if you are adding gas in there you will be sacrificing econ and time. So it makes most sense to either delay gas, delay your expo or cut units.
This build allows for early game flexibility, that is it's benefit. And I recognize that. Which is why I say it has a place versus protoss and zerg, both of which MU's you almost always go pool first against. Having the extra flexibility versus those races is worth it sometimes. This is not an end all be all build order, and a lot of people in here are saying things like it is.
And in my opinion, versus TERRAN (which is all I have been talking about?,) it is more beneficial to go hatch first, provided you aren't awful at defending against 2 rax play and you aren't spawned close positions.
On December 07 2010 15:54 Keilah wrote: The evidence is enough for me, I'm satisfied that 11pool > hatch first. I'll even add that throwing in lings/gas/scouting would make the 11pool a LARGER favorite vs a hatch first, by reducing the impact of oversaturation.
The one advantage of hatch first is that it gets up creep at the expo faster, which might be important for spines and movement speed. Are there builds (2rax, zlot rush for example) where the fast expo creep is a necessity? Or can the 11pool defend those just as well or better?
Here is a video I found just today. PsyStarcraft covering a player who went "some teamliquid economic build." It makes me really happy to see this stuff and know it is catching on out there! Don't knock it till you look it up and try it Psy.
I've been playing around with a few variations on this build. I've been going 11 overpool, 16 queen, then extractor trick to get 1 set of zerglings out and then hatch on 19. Then I make an overlord and remake the extractor and make something else before the overlord pops. I think I can get away without scouting before the lings that way and it chases off scouts. Anybody have any thoughts on that? I've also done 16 queen 18 extractor, lings, and then expo without cancelling the extractor to get faster speed, but I don't think you can keep up constant production and get your second queen quite in time for your expo that way.
By the way, this may have been mentioned, but I tested the timings and making an in base spinecrawler and moving it to the expo to plant immediately as it finishes is only a few seconds slower than doing 14 hatch and planting the spine crawler as it finishes.
The only problem I have witht he build is the fact your 2nd hatch isn't up yet, so thus no creep, you can't just drop the spine right away and that gives your enemy that much more time to get marines & bunkers up your rear.
On December 08 2010 12:19 Mephs wrote: The only problem I have witht he build is the fact your 2nd hatch isn't up yet, so thus no creep, you can't just drop the spine right away and that gives your enemy that much more time to get marines & bunkers up your rear.
It isn't spines that prevent bunkers from getting built, it is lings.
On December 07 2010 12:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow some of you really need to read the OP's well written, well supported, well detailed post.
@shane_danger16
It's just a general BO, it's not saying "DON'T GET SPEED FOR THIS BUILD, NOPE NEVER!" If you want speed, then make an extractor and put 3 drones into it. No problem there.
@people making random claims
Cmon, seriously! Look at the OP's post. He even has a graph. And plus, probably dozens of posts within this thread. Stop trying to tear him apart. He's already supported himself and proved that his BO is X or Y. Sure of course there will be situations where it's not as good as a different BO, but he's definitely backed up what he says the BO can do with data.
Thanks once again for your work! And it's nice to see the OP even has a graph now since the last time I visited this thread =D
random claims?
The claim is that:
If an extractor is added early (before your 18 expo), the economy hit will be greater than that of a 14hatch/15pool build. Which is really common sense, so you need to either delay your ling speed or delay your expo further (or cut units.)
And saying, omg he even has a graph! is pointless. He compared the graph to a build that is not standard. Compare it to 14 hatch/14-15 Pool, which is by all accounts the most standard zerg opening.
The blind following is as equally bad as blind criticism.
Why would you econ hit of the extractor be bigger on the 11 overpool/18 hatch than on the 14 hatch/15 pool build and why do you claim it's "common sense"? To be sure you would have to test a 14 hatch/15pool/14 extractor against an 11 overpool/17 extractor/18 hatch, which both yield ling speed at around 06:00. I sincerely doubt this will change the conclusions of the OP.
Yeah your right, producing drones out of 2 hatcheries while getting gas would be equal to producing drones out of one hatchery while getting gas. And mining off of 2 bases while getting gas is equal to mining off of 1 base while getting gas.
And the build order has you building an overlord at 17, when your hatchery is placed, and 18 immediately following your previous overlord. So thats 550 minerals within 1 supply of each other while you have only 15 drones mining (2 supply for queen) not to mention this is not including 1 supply for some scouting lings which every zerg has outside their opponents base, if you are adding gas in there you will be sacrificing econ and time. So it makes most sense to either delay gas, delay your expo or cut units.
This build allows for early game flexibility, that is it's benefit. And I recognize that. Which is why I say it has a place versus protoss and zerg, both of which MU's you almost always go pool first against. Having the extra flexibility versus those races is worth it sometimes. This is not an end all be all build order, and a lot of people in here are saying things like it is.
And in my opinion, versus TERRAN (which is all I have been talking about?,) it is more beneficial to go hatch first, provided you aren't awful at defending against 2 rax play and you aren't spawned close positions.
The OP has demonstrated with numbers and replays that 11 Overpool 18 Hatch is only slightly behind the 14 hatch 15 pool economically and is better economically than all pool first builds. What I'm saying is that adding gas to both builds does not alter this conclusion in any significant way. By putting down the extractor at 18 and making another drone, because of the extractor build time you're only gona start harvesting gas after you have enough minerals to lay down your hatch. Also even with those 3 drones on gas (until 100 gas), you have enough minerals to build 4 drones when your first larvae pops. Here's a replay fyi.
On December 08 2010 11:33 MorsCerta wrote: This build allows for early game flexibility, that is it's benefit. And I recognize that. Which is why I say it has a place versus protoss and zerg, both of which MU's you almost always go pool first against. Having the extra flexibility versus those races is worth it sometimes. This is not an end all be all build order, and a lot of people in here are saying things like it is.
And in my opinion, versus TERRAN (which is all I have been talking about?,) it is more beneficial to go hatch first, provided you aren't awful at defending against 2 rax play and you aren't spawned close positions.
May be this is true. I still 11-pool every time, just to get this build right. I would have more trouble to perform different BOs. Good players of course will practise different BOs, but in this case I am with Day9 who claims that creativity comes out of constrains.
If we say "you have to 11-Overpool no matter what", we can discuss how this can be utilized against terran. Unless with very good mechanics, it is may be better to execute this build smoothly instead of have several BOs but anyone of them is executed sloppily.
On December 08 2010 11:30 evanthebouncy! wrote: hehe yeah agreed completely. That early queen is a life saver.
Originally, hatch is the only way to generate larvae, but by getting pool first, we get queen fast as well, therefore it's good economically.
At least for me, it is good for the nerves to have a quite early pool and a quite early queen. I feel safe and I am not single-minded about "must ... survive ... enemy timing push ..."
The 50-100 minerals behind around 7 minutes is not going to cost me a game outright, you know what will cost me a game outright? Getting hit with 6 pool or proxy rax/gateway when i'm doing hatch first. Maybe you have the hand speed and micro to defend against 2 rax pressure at your nat with 1 crawler and 6 lings like idra while not falling behind on your macro, i sure as hell don't, i'll be 1 base 2 hatching it.
Also since the early queen and lings let me fight off the super fast cheese i don't have to blow a drone on scouting so early on, which should actually mitigate what economy difference there is between the 14 hatch and the overpool. But still, the deciding factor for me is that i'm not going to get knocked out of any game before it even starts just because 6 lings or a couple zealots just crashed my droning party.
On December 09 2010 06:49 jaunty wrote: The 50-100 minerals behind around 7 minutes is not going to cost me a game outright, you know what will cost me a game outright? Getting hit with 6 pool or proxy rax/gateway when i'm doing hatch first. Maybe you have the hand speed and micro to defend against 2 rax pressure at your nat with 1 crawler and 6 lings like idra while not falling behind on your macro, i sure as hell don't, i'll be 1 base 2 hatching it.
Also since the early queen and lings let me fight off the super fast cheese i don't have to blow a drone on scouting so early on, which should actually mitigate what economy difference there is between the 14 hatch and the overpool. But still, the deciding factor for me is that i'm not going to get knocked out of any game before it even starts just because 6 lings or a couple zealots just crashed my droning party.
Remind me again how the early pool means you don't have to scout like the rest of us?
On December 09 2010 06:49 jaunty wrote: The 50-100 minerals behind around 7 minutes is not going to cost me a game outright, you know what will cost me a game outright? Getting hit with 6 pool or proxy rax/gateway when i'm doing hatch first. Maybe you have the hand speed and micro to defend against 2 rax pressure at your nat with 1 crawler and 6 lings like idra while not falling behind on your macro, i sure as hell don't, i'll be 1 base 2 hatching it.
Also since the early queen and lings let me fight off the super fast cheese i don't have to blow a drone on scouting so early on, which should actually mitigate what economy difference there is between the 14 hatch and the overpool. But still, the deciding factor for me is that i'm not going to get knocked out of any game before it even starts just because 6 lings or a couple zealots just crashed my droning party.
Remind me again how the early pool means you don't have to scout like the rest of us?
He never said he did not have to scout. He said "i don't have to blow a drone on scouting so early on". Maybe he means that the lings come out so fast that he can move to their base to see if aggression is coming by reviewing what units are at the door and what buildings are in sight. I'm sure he scouts the enemy sooner or later with an overseer or overlord, but maybe the lings tell him the information he needs in the early game.
wow - i would like to thank the OP for the ridiculous amount of research, complete thoroughness of explanation and time spent explaining and defending this build. that alone does worlds to legitimize it in my mind, and it will certainly be changing the way i open most of my matchups.
Crixus yet again does a great job demonstrating the power of this build by winning his second game against iEchoic. This game is very similar to the 2rax-expand game I posted earlier in the OP. Enjoy.
On December 09 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote: Crixus yet again does a great job demonstrating the power of this build by winning his second game against iEchoic. This game is very similar to the 2rax-expand game I posted earlier in the OP. Enjoy.
See JD? Through patience you will get yours in the end, ignore the haters that don't bring legit criticism.
On December 09 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote: Crixus yet again does a great job demonstrating the power of this build by winning his second game against iEchoic. This game is very similar to the 2rax-expand game I posted earlier in the OP. Enjoy.
See JD? Through patience you will get yours in the end, ignore the haters that don't bring legit criticism.
Agreed I don't even play Zerg but if he can hold of iEchoic with this build I am sure its solid. I been following the other thread with Rets quote I read that whole damn thread. The arguments for your build are strong I am sure it will catch on in no time. Maybe you should bring that video to that thread also.
On December 09 2010 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote: Crixus yet again does a great job demonstrating the power of this build by winning his second game against iEchoic. This game is very similar to the 2rax-expand game I posted earlier in the OP. Enjoy.
I am not saying that the 11pool is not ok, but in that replay it is the terran who made the mistake to expand a little too fast. And Z got lucky with that fast speed, because if you get speed that fast ant T does not push you are behind.
Just wanted to add my two-cents after trying to use this build. I don't like it at all.
-Unsafe therefore, -Economically Unsound.
In a situation where you couldn't 14Hatch/xPooled anyway, you can't do 11Pool/18hatch and get the same economy you would have had 14Hatch/xPool.
Sure, the idea is "oh well you /can/ get defenses early if you need to cuz the pool is so early." This very often turns out to be the case. Thing is, the moment you purchase those defenses, you would have been economically better off going 14Pool in the first place.
In addition, there is a timing where, around when your hatch is finishing, you're more at least as vulnerable, if not /more vulnerable/ than you would be if you had gone 14 Hatch. A big reason, if not the main reason for this, is that your creep spread will be slower/later. This is absolutely key if you need to get Spine Crawlers into the correct place at the correct time, which is the current fashion when doing 14Hatch against P & T, and is also very good when facing Z if you do a double-queen ramp block.
So, despite the spirit of this build, I feel that for the above reasons, it is actually, -Less Safe -& Economically Inferior
I also like 14 hatch because of that fast creep but: what do you do if they block that? what do you do if they block your ramp? what do you do if they bunker rush your hatch? what about 6pool ,7pool? I know, Pros fight all that with drones... but i cannot so in any of the above cases i find myself better with 11Pool actually i do a 12Pool but that does not matter.
I mostly play with my friends so they know my stile and they find flows in any build if you just do that over and over. I lately like to use both 15hatch and 12pool... it seems i am 1 food late on both builds :-))
On December 09 2010 17:31 Shamaya wrote:Sure, the idea is "oh well you /can/ get defenses early if you need to cuz the pool is so early." This very often turns out to be the case. Thing is, the moment you purchase those defenses, you would have been economically better off going 14Pool in the first place.
It's worthy of note that if you need to get spines quickly at your natural, you can build them in your main and walk them down to burrow as soon as the hatchery finishes. This should cut down the window when a 4 Rax or whatever can push you without resorting to mass Zerglings.
On December 09 2010 17:31 Shamaya wrote:Sure, the idea is "oh well you /can/ get defenses early if you need to cuz the pool is so early." This very often turns out to be the case. Thing is, the moment you purchase those defenses, you would have been economically better off going 14Pool in the first place.
Eh? How would 14 Pool be better?
i doubt hes even tried it if he believes something like that.. its worked wonders for my game
I can see that this is a good build but I don't see that many situations where I would use it
vs P: if i wanted to go economic i would go 14/15/16hatch then pool, which sets up a nice defense for 4 gate and is better than your build for the economy. If i somehow needed that pool early to defend against a 2 gate, then why would i use 11pool 18 hatch - since I won't be able to put my hatch down at that point anyway, its better to go 14pool and go roach etc
vs T: against 2 rax imo you need creep at natural to place a spinecrawler. expanding at 18 is not fast enough... so again, i would go 14/15/16 hatch first
vs Z: in zvz I think it is a good opener, since you can react very easily - if he does early pool you can defend well and if he hatches first you'll be able to 18 hatch.
at the moment i can't see why i would use this vs P or T
Ok I did some extensive testing of the build as I was sure the build did have some flaws which many of the followers were overseeing.
I tested the 11 pool build as described by the OP against a 14 pool 17 hatch build. I chose the 14 pool 17 hatch build as 14 pool builds are the most common for pool first builds (with gas or without gas) and 14 pool 17 hatch is a very good economic version.
I just played the games on normal settings (which is fastest speed) on steppes of war. I made sure i had the bottom spawn in each case so that the positioning of the minerals compared to the hatchery (which I expect to have a decent influence) didn't matter. For the rest I basically played each build up till about the 4:00 min mark and then noted some key aspects of the build: - start time of the 2nd overlord - start time of the spawning pool - eventual drone delay at a hatchery - start time of the 2nd hatchery - total minerals mined at 2:00, 2:30, 3:00 and 3:30. The reason I chose these was because these characteristics are the only real differences between the build orders. The amount of drones wasn't measured as it easily follows from both the pool and hatchery starting times and the starting time of the spawning pool (which determines the starting time of the first and 2nd queen). The mineral times were chosen as I think those are the most crucial times were minerals differ between the build orders, beyond 3:30 you are always reacting to your opponent anyway making lings or getting gas or whatever. Beyond 3:30 measurement gets alot trickier as well as aspects like how well was the build executed, how many drones to maynard, what map was played etc. play a MUCH bigger role then. For measurement I used the match history screen to determine the start time of the overlord, pool and hatchery. For the minerals mined I used the 'Spending' tab and counted all the minerals spend + the current minerals. It is important to note by the way that this method is not completely flawless as the 'spending' tab doesn't always show everything, for example if something is queed or hasn't yet started building the money is actually already spent (ie. not showing as a player resource) but does NOT yet show in the 'Spending' tab. Example's of these can be queeing up the 2nd queen, or making a hatchery while the drone is still on his way. I carefully watched and checked my data for these kind of errors though. Finally the eventual drone delay i simply timed by watching the replay carefully. I performed both the 11 pool and 14 pool twice to see if there was a big discrepancy in measurement of the minerals. Between the 2 the measurements differed by 15 minerals max at any time, which makes me assess the deviation to be about +- 10 minerals.
The build orders I used are the following: 11 pool build as described by the OP: + Show Spoiler +
11 pool: 2nd overlord started @ 1:08 pool started @ 1:33 hatch started @ 3:05 idle hatchery time: ~7 secs 14 pool 2nd overlord started @ 0:48 pool started @ 1:53 hatch started @ 2:50 no idle hatchery
minerals time 11 p 14 p effective difference 2:00 1464 1470 10 2:30 1704 1745 45 3:00 2019 2055 40 3:30 2334 2394 60
As can be seen 11 pool DOES indeed cost some minerals in the early game, roughly equal to 50 minerals. The spawning pool does start a fair bit sooner though (20 seconds) which results in both the first (and potentially the 2nd queen) being 20 seconds faster then a 14 pool build. The 2nd hatchery however is delayed by 15 seconds compared to a 14 pool 17 hatchery build which arguably already has a late hatchery. As for the larvae difference it basically comes down to idle hatchery time & late 2nd hatch VS. fast queen(s): 11 pool has the first queen 20 seconds faster. Given that a queen adds 1 larva every 10 seconds this is basically +2 larvae compared to a 14 pool. However there is also a downtime on the hatchery of roughly 7 seconds, given that a hatch produces 1 larva every 15 seconds this equals roughly 1/2 a larvae. Also the 2nd hatchery is 15 seconds later which equals another larva. As a result in total 11 pool has 2 - 0.5 - 1 = 0.5 larva more then a 14 pool build. Note that if the 2nd queen is made DIRECTLY after the the first queen that queen will also be 20 seconds earlier. In that case the larva advantage compared to 14 pool will be 2.5 larva. In practice directly queeing the queens after eachother is VERY hard with a 11 pool build though (as it requires no scouting, no lings, no gas and a very smooth performance) whereas it's easy to quee the queens with a 14 pool build. Overall I'd guess the larvae difference between the 2 builds is somewhere around 1 - 1.5
The first thing to note is that my data deviates a bit from what the OP and some others have been saying in this thread. I can only answer those by saying that 1) the OP didn't test a proper 14 pool build and 2) the graph provided by the OP is very misleading, as mineral counts beyond the 4 minute mark are absolutely irrelevant. Of course a build that sacrifices early economy to get more drones will get theoretically infinitely ahead in minerals later on, this however is completely irrelevant when it comes to real play.
Something that isn't seen in the data but I did notice during testing was that the 11 pool build is extremely tight. ie it fits exactly which is not neccesarily a bad thing but CAN be when you do small deviations. For example if you work in a drone scout around 12 or so I foresee another bit of idle hatchery time at 18 pop as you're waiting for the 3rd overlord to finish and your 2nd queen will be delayed even more while the faster queens is a big reason to do this build at all. Also the 20 second delay on the 2nd overlord can be annoying at maps where you actually want to use that overlord to scout out a spawning spot / reach a zone to camp a cliff (LT and meta for example).
As a result I think the 11 pool build is simply bad on maps where you actually want to scout early (4 player maps) as then it's basically just worse in every aspect then a 14 pool build. Note that the larva advantage is HUGELY dependant on how fast you can actually make the 2nd queen which in turn does depend alot on having to make a scout, having to drone patrol the ramp etc. On 2 player maps however you could say that scouting with a 11 pool build is unneccesary and the delayed 2nd overlord is irrelevant as you are sure to scout their position with your first anyway. There is a fair point therefore to be made about this build on (small) 2 player maps. By making a small deviation to the build you can add in a early pair (or multiple pairs) of lings while still getting a super fast queen. Those early lings will then: - make sure you can get your 2nd hatch down quickly (whereas that's the big liability with a 14 pool 17 hatch build) - scout their base quickly - perhaps force them into a inefficient build (for example the Protoss dual stalker opening generally skips the first zealot, but that would be very risky if you arrive at their door early with 4 lings).
Conclusion 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 would recommend doing a slightly adjusted build though: 10 extractor trick 11 overlord 11 pool stop drones at 15, then when pool finishes: 15 queen + 2 pair of lings using a extractor trick 19 overlord 19 hatchery (the lings should be at your natural exactly when you move the drone out, able to kill their scout and prevent a block).
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.
Chickenlips is completely right on this but i was just giving my personal input just for the theory sake and fun of the argument. Also there are tons of circumstances where pro's (who indeed just tend to wing it) do horrible build orders even up to GSL level. With the advent of pro teams in korea and coaches dedicated to strategy fine tuned builds are seeing more play though as the level of play rises as well. Overall I agree though that 14 hatch is basically the best build in 80% of the cases as early creep spread and not getting blocked are HUGE for Z, but in some cases other builds can be alright. This particular build is only good for dealing with hatch blocks or (faking) early pressure both of which are often not really neccesary considering it does take a decent dent in economy to do so (50 minerals down is considerable).
He gets infestors, which is a very popular ZvZ strat these days, but I think they are honestly terrible. I haven't lost a game yet to any infestor play. I think the gas is much better spent in hydras or upgrades, but that is just my 2cents.
The way this guy from your replay used them - sure they r useless. Actually there is not many ppl which use them properly. Thing which he wrote in replay just shows he got no clue how to use them - u dont need critical mass of them - all u need is enough of them to cast fungal 5-6 times total. Thing is to use it properly: way he did it is stick infestors to roaches and wait in base for u - thats wrong and if u use it this way u can skip them coz they are not cost efective - even if u got 10. Way they are good: get 2 of them and met enemy army in middle of the map - fungal 2-3 times whole his army there and pull back to base - before he get into ur spine crawlers do another 2-3 fungals and pull back to spine crawlers with rest of roaches - u dont need any more fungals at this point - if he decide to rush in his army is ALREADY at half hp and 2 more fungals will wipe everything together with few roaches - if he had mostly hydras then probably army is already dead. This is proper way of infestors but if ppl just camp them and use them when enemy is already in their base then its just waste of gas. Thats also the reason why top pro zergs are using infestors - they know how to use them and if they wont - they will lose.
About build - its rly good - i especially like it vs zerg and terran. Vs zerg its just rly safe to any super early rush and super eco build. Against teran they mostly prepare for roach rush after super fast poll and/or bbust so they put shit loads of bunkers waste minerals on heavy wall and its pretty good vs 2rax push. Maybe what idra wrote is true that its easier to fight 2 rax with 14 hatch but well - im not idra and i got no such micro to just fend of stuff with drones, but my enemies are no foxer as well so its better then hatch first for me. Against protos i got mixed feelings - i see no big benefit from it compared to standard against protos which is 14 pool. Most ppl wont see difference between 11 and 14 pool on big maps and just play normal - 14 pool can already counter 2 gate pressure so i see no real benefit here - its not bad but nothing special. Anyway nice job and great opening.
On December 09 2010 18:58 Hurkyl wrote: Eh? How would 14 Pool be better?
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, obviously, but catches up when the earlier larvae become drones. 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. the 11pool is good in the sense that its flexible and allows you to easily beat cheese that would give you a hard time if you went hatch first, while being a good economic build if it turns out villain isnt cheesing. However, I've had a lot of difficulty against fast hitting 4gates with it because of the worse creep spread; AND its not good at all against 2rax because it will leave you terribily behind economically and it's very easy for terran to set up a contain if he wishes to do so.
really good posts by shamanya, chickenlips and demetrio further explaining the problem this build has with early pressure. as strange as it may sound to the supporters of this build but the weakness of an 11 pool is actually early pressure because you will come out behind economically compared to the 14 hatch or 14 pool although it may be easier to fend it off (this is IMHO the reason many people like this build).
On December 09 2010 23:55 Markwerf wrote: ... considering it does take a decent dent in economy to do so (50 minerals down is considerable).
yes 50 minerals is huge :-)))) SURE! not to mention that when you do the extractor trick you end up with 4 minerals that you can never spend!
i also do the 15 hatch first because i like the statement, it feels very good that you expend with first money then build something else, but this build is ok and it has a lot of potential.
On December 10 2010 00:29 dementrio wrote: because the 11pool build is _worse_ economically in the beginning, obviously, but catches up when the earlier larvae become drones.
On December 10 2010 01:05 fleeze wrote:
because you will come out behind economically compared to the 14 hatch or 14 pool
Accepting data which conforms to your convictions and rejecting data which opposes your convictions is a very good life skill to have. The next step is to become involved in partisan politics, listen to pundits who reinforce your beliefs, and form a love/hate relationship with political candidates.
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? 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.
I didn't get a chance to read this entire thread, but from the perspective of a protoss player who goes 15 nex every single game except on Steppes/DQ, I met this build on ladder a few times and it's annoying because I have to put down my forge first. This build (11 pool) definitely comes out ahead of me versus 14 pool (where I can always nex first) or hatch first.
I've been doing 12ov pool, 15ov, 16queen + 1 pair of lings +gas, and hatch at 18-20. Your first 2 lings come out in time to drive the worker away and it won't get you supply blocked if the hatch is delayed. I'm not sure about how the economy goes in comparison to 11 ov pool, but the pool is only about 7 seconds later and you have an extra drone and a lot easier time with other stuff, so I don't think it should be too bad.
EDIT: Btw 12opool doesn't have even a second of larvae downtime where you sit around with 3 larvae while the pool is building, I think that the fact makes it pretty awesome.
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.
Just wanted to pitch in and say that i find this build very interesting. I have used it for 2 days now, and i have had lots of success with it. Granted, I don't know if I would've had any less of success doing the standard build, but I am going to keep using this build for some time now, and see if it keeps giving me good results
I'd personally prefer to 13 pool, 16 hatch against protoss all the time, because that build is more robust under small deviations than the 11 pool 18 hatch.
However, there's always a pylon at my natural when I 13 pool. This delays the 16 hatch. There's also the danger of being walled in by pylons and a cannon.
So the real comparison should be between 11 pool, 19 hatch (extra pair of lings to kill pylon) and 13 pool, X hatch, when the hatch is so delayed by a pylon.
I suspect that the 11 pool is a lot better than a 13 pool, seriously delayed hatch, when dealing with this sort of problem. It also lets you handle an early nexus very easily.
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.
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 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?
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
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.
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.
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 03:17 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 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.
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.
On December 10 2010 05:10 Markwerf wrote: 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
First of all, please, stop name-calling and righteous chest beating -- that goes for everybody. I can hardly stand to read the constructive comments amongst all the drama.
Most importantly, the issue at hand is 11-pool vs 14-pool. When you expand is for our purposes irrelevant because the difference between an 11/18 and a 14/18 is the pool opening. Now if we want to talk about hatch first builds then that is a different story, but between the 11 and 14 pool I see little difference (if we want to argue about when to expand, this is also a separate argument). I'll explain in as much detail as I can what the differences are between them.
1) When does the pool go down? 11-Pool 1:34 14-Pool 1:53
A ~19 second difference.
2) When is the 21st larva produced from the hatch? 11-Pool 2:56 14-Pool 2:48
This demonstrates that the 11-Pool's larva production is delayed by ~8 seconds.
3) How many minerals mined after 3:00 11-Pool 1270 14-Pool 1320
This shows the difference in minerals mined is ~70 at 3:00 (average appears to be ~50).
Now, the test I ran to get these results was an 11 and 14 pool build where I made a pool, 2 overlords, and 19 drones (one becomes the pool). Of course, the build I used for the test is not a build you would use in a game, but rather is a build that allows us to test the difference economically between the 11 and 14 pool because all other factors are controlled.
Now, if both builds get their queen right after the spawning pool finishes, then the 11-pool compensates for its ~8 second larva delay by producing 4 larva ~19 seconds faster than the 14-pool. This would explain why we expect to see a reversal of economic positions around the 6 minute mark. I believe the question should be, what are you planning on doing with that 50 mineral lead between 3:00 and 6:00?
Markwerf, you said that no one cares if this build is ahead at 6 minutes. Can you elaborate as to what exactly that temporary 50 mineral advantage will be used for? You shouldn't have any extra larva to spend it on, and even if you did, wouldn't you simply be playing catch up to the larva delay you incurred by getting your pool/queen ~19 seconds later? All I can foresee is that you'd put down your next building (a hatch, perhaps) 2-5 seconds earlier.
I, attempting to be as objective as I can, see no substantial benefit to going 14 pool instead of 11-pool. Please, if anyone disagrees, construct a response less vile than the recent posts and explain in similar detail how something I've done here is in error or what benefit I may have overlooked, etc. Also, I think we should avoid using personal anecdotes as much as possible in order to discuss these differences objectively. We all know that none of us are good enough ourselves or face opponents good enough to test the validity of either build in ideal level play. No, by the way, 2000 D is not good. No, 2200 D isn't good either. Perhaps at 2700+ I'd personally have marginal respect for someone's anecdotes, but even then, I play at the 2400 range and I know how terrible everyone is at that level.
On December 10 2010 08:50 Shikyo wrote: 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.
If I remember correctly, the issue with the 12 pool is the time you spend waiting for 100+ minerals to do the trick causes problems down the line, but I honestly can't be sure. Feel free to produce some replays to help us gather more data. Perhaps it is an improvement.
On December 10 2010 08:50 Shikyo wrote: 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.
On December 02 2010 21:32 thenanox wrote: i remeber in one of TL threads that they speak about what is more optimal, and actually it was 12 pool with double extractor trick. Also i remember in bold text that NEVER OVERPOOL in this game
More optimal for what? 12overpool off a double extractor is behind 11overpool in both larvae and minerals at pretty much every point. And 12pool before overlord wastes a *ton* of larvae early on, which is the very worst time to be wasting larvae.
And there's a really really good chance that the bolded never overpool text was posted by me. Whenever I've done that, I've been referring specifically to 10overpool, which is always bad, and you should never do, because pretty much every other single build is always better than it. 11overpool obviously can be fine though, since it turns out it provides one of the most economic options available to zerg, surpassed only by 14hatch/15pool or 14h/14p.
On December 10 2010 09:01 Shikyo wrote: ^ You can do the first one earlier... your drone will just have to stay as an extractor for a while longer. I'm not sure which way is faster.
12overpool has 0 larva downtime though, so it will have the "21st" larva referred to in the long post above out at the same time as a 14pool would.
What advantage does 12 overpool have over just 12 pooling the ordinary way? IIRC 11 and 9 overlord both leave you with more minerals than 12 overlord.
On December 10 2010 09:01 Shikyo wrote: ^ You can do the first one earlier... your drone will just have to stay as an extractor for a while longer. I'm not sure which way is faster.
12overpool has 0 larva downtime though, so it will have the "21st" larva referred to in the long post above out at the same time as a 14pool would.
What advantage does 12 overpool have over just 12 pooling the ordinary way? IIRC 11 and 9 overlord both leave you with more minerals than 12 overlord.
You get your 10th, 11th, and 12th drones way earlier and with normal 9ov build you still would need to wait a long time. The reason 12ov here doesn't give you less minerals is because you're going to be waiting for enough minerals for the pool while the overlord is building anyway, there's no downtime while you're waiting for ov anyway.
On December 10 2010 09:01 Shikyo wrote: ^ You can do the first one earlier... your drone will just have to stay as an extractor for a while longer. I'm not sure which way is faster.
12overpool has 0 larva downtime though, so it will have the "21st" larva referred to in the long post above out at the same time as a 14pool would.
What advantage does 12 overpool have over just 12 pooling the ordinary way? IIRC 11 and 9 overlord both leave you with more minerals than 12 overlord.
You get your 10th, 11th, and 12th drones way earlier and with normal 9ov build you still would need to wait a long time. The reason 12ov here doesn't give you less minerals is because you're going to be waiting for enough minerals for the pool while the overlord is building anyway, there's no downtime while you're waiting for ov anyway.
I note that you haven't actually claimed to have tested it to see if the good points you are espousing outweigh the bad points you're ignoring....
I have tested it, and I just did so again -- 11 Overlord got the 200 minerals for the 12 Pool about 1.5 seconds sooner than 12 Overlord did.
Man, Psy sure ate his words with those two casts! I can't wait to try this out.
Did not! I admitted ignorance to it and called it some kind of economic ten pool (wrong about the 10 pool part), but I didn't dismiss it completely. I knew about this thread at the time I cast those game, but I'm still skeptical. I said I would wait to see what the pros are doing =)
To be fair, Crixus was way behind in the game against me macro-wise, I just forgot to wall with raxes or spam bunkers like I usually do. Had I done that, I would have been way ahead. Not saying the build doesn't work (it seems solid to me) but that game doesn't illustrate too much. I had more workers, more production, was researching +atk, stim, cs, and had 2x mules, just made a dumbass mistake.
On December 10 2010 10:51 iEchoic wrote: To be fair, Crixus was way behind in the game against me macro-wise, I just forgot to wall with raxes or spam bunkers like I usually do. Had I done that, I would have been way ahead. Not saying the build doesn't work (it seems solid to me) but that game doesn't illustrate too much. I had more workers, more production, was researching +atk, stim, cs, and had 2x mules, just made a dumbass mistake.
On December 10 2010 10:51 iEchoic wrote: To be fair, Crixus was way behind in the game against me macro-wise, I just forgot to wall with raxes or spam bunkers like I usually do. Had I done that, I would have been way ahead. Not saying the build doesn't work (it seems solid to me) but that game doesn't illustrate too much. I had more workers, more production, was researching +atk, stim, cs, and had 2x mules, just made a dumbass mistake.
In both games I think crixus cut way too many drones in favor of lings. I personally would have droned much harder, but it is difficult to tell how each side would compare economically in that case.
Honestly, I don't think the answer matters as much as recognizing the flexibility of going for either economy or aggression with the build.
Man, Psy sure ate his words with those two casts! I can't wait to try this out.
Did not! I admitted ignorance to it and called it some kind of economic ten pool (wrong about the 10 pool part), but I didn't dismiss it completely. I knew about this thread at the time I cast those game, but I'm still skeptical. I said I would wait to see what the pros are doing =)
Instead of waiting for the pros, maybe you should try it out on the ladder a couple times, and then cast the games.
I would also like to know your opinion on the hatch-first vs. 2rax debate. I've heard that a few pros are claiming that hatch-first is best against 2rax, but I think this contradicts everything we've seen in the GSL and elsewhere.
Anyway, thanks for posting in my thread. You are my hero after IdrA, and the best caster after Day9.
It is just so complicated when everyone tests separately, because everyone has slightly different methods and results. I'm not sure why you would retest the 11Pool and post the 1270 amount when I already have a replay showing 1324 at the same 3:00 mark on the same map.
To be honest, I am done arguing the economic merits of this build. I already posted comparisons against 4 different build orders with graphs. If people want to do their own tests and choose their own build orders and use their own methods of testing and their own criteria for comparison, I can't respond to them all individually.
But I agree with you, that if the difference was just 50 minerals, then that would be a worthwhile sacrifice for the greater safety and flexibility of an earlier pool. I just find it hard to believe the difference is 50 minerals or anything else higher for that matter.
There is a pattern of the same 3 individuals (if it really IS 3 individuals) coming on the thread every night at the same time criticizing everything posted on this thread, and I'm done with all the data wars.
On December 10 2010 10:51 iEchoic wrote: To be fair, Crixus was way behind in the game against me macro-wise, I just forgot to wall with raxes or spam bunkers like I usually do. Had I done that, I would have been way ahead. Not saying the build doesn't work (it seems solid to me) but that game doesn't illustrate too much. I had more workers, more production, was researching +atk, stim, cs, and had 2x mules, just made a dumbass mistake.
yeah, I tend to get behind in worker count and upgrade timings when I baneling bust =P
steppes is a very hard map for zerg, at all periods in the game.
I knew we were definelty close in skill levels, so I decided to take my chances.
I did defiently over-ling for the amount of pressure he brought with the 2 rax, but any zergs out there that have died to ot multiple times in a row to it might understand why...
iEchoic is a very good Terran who just got caught off guard... kinda wierd that in this game- it wasnt a zerg that was doing so.
On December 10 2010 08:50 Shikyo wrote: 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.
This is actually what I've been doing in zvp. On 4 player maps I will send a drone at 10 to scout the other close position. If the toss is in cross positions I will just flat out go for a 14 hatch and if he's in close positions then I'll 12 pool 16 queen 18 hatch.
On December 10 2010 10:51 iEchoic wrote: To be fair, Crixus was way behind in the game against me macro-wise, I just forgot to wall with raxes or spam bunkers like I usually do. Had I done that, I would have been way ahead. Not saying the build doesn't work (it seems solid to me) but that game doesn't illustrate too much. I had more workers, more production, was researching +atk, stim, cs, and had 2x mules, just made a dumbass mistake.
yeah, I tend to get behind in worker count and upgrade timings when I baneling bust =P
steppes is a very hard map for zerg, at all periods in the game.
I knew we were definelty close in skill levels, so I decided to take my chances.
I did defiently over-ling for the amount of pressure he brought with the 2 rax, but any zergs out there that have died to ot multiple times in a row to it might understand why...
iEchoic is a very good Terran who just got caught off guard... kinda wierd that in this game- it wasnt a zerg that was doing so.
EDIT: me = Crixus
I believe a huge point is being missed here. It is not just the fact that an 11 overpool can be economical; it's that when scouted, the opponent thinks they are WAY ahead, setting themselves up for, quoting psy, the most production/upgrades at one time ever. Nevermind the fact that the scv-marine-bunker rush was fought off AND that the kind of pressure that was brought in return by the zerg was even possible in the first place (AFTER overlinging!!!). Classic fork move between the rook and queen with the knight in chess. It only happens because you did not see it coming.
To conclude, the OP's whole point is that this build brings a combination of elements in such an unpredictable balance between economy, security, reaction capability, that keeps the opponent guessing and uncomfortable.
On December 10 2010 10:51 iEchoic wrote: To be fair, Crixus was way behind in the game against me macro-wise, I just forgot to wall with raxes or spam bunkers like I usually do. Had I done that, I would have been way ahead. Not saying the build doesn't work (it seems solid to me) but that game doesn't illustrate too much. I had more workers, more production, was researching +atk, stim, cs, and had 2x mules, just made a dumbass mistake.
I did defiently over-ling for the amount of pressure he brought with the 2 rax, but any zergs out there that have died to ot multiple times in a row to it might understand why...
Agreed, you made the best of the situation, and that's the best followup to over-linging. My mistake on not reading it, not yours.
On December 10 2010 10:51 iEchoic wrote: To be fair, Crixus was way behind in the game against me macro-wise, I just forgot to wall with raxes or spam bunkers like I usually do. Had I done that, I would have been way ahead. Not saying the build doesn't work (it seems solid to me) but that game doesn't illustrate too much. I had more workers, more production, was researching +atk, stim, cs, and had 2x mules, just made a dumbass mistake.
yeah, I tend to get behind in worker count and upgrade timings when I baneling bust =P
steppes is a very hard map for zerg, at all periods in the game.
I knew we were definelty close in skill levels, so I decided to take my chances.
I did defiently over-ling for the amount of pressure he brought with the 2 rax, but any zergs out there that have died to ot multiple times in a row to it might understand why...
iEchoic is a very good Terran who just got caught off guard... kinda wierd that in this game- it wasnt a zerg that was doing so.
EDIT: me = Crixus
I believe a huge point is being missed here. It is not just the fact that an 11 overpool can be economical; it's that when scouted, the opponent thinks they are WAY ahead, setting themselves up for, quoting psy, the most production/upgrades at one time ever. Nevermind the fact that the scv-marine-bunker rush was fought off AND that the kind of pressure that was brought in return by the zerg was even possible in the first place (AFTER overlinging!!!). Classic fork move between the rook and queen with the knight in chess. It only happens because you did not see it coming.
It doesn't take a lot of commitment to stop a bling bust. though. All I would have had to do is lifted my raxes over. Or spent 400 minerals dropping 4 bunkers. I usually blindly do it as a matter of procedure, I was just really stupid about it. It's not like I couldn't do those upgrades and also defend.
Don't get me wrong, I think the build is really good and underused. I just think the game I played wasn't a great representation.
On December 10 2010 05:10 Markwerf wrote: 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
First of all, please, stop name-calling and righteous chest beating -- that goes for everybody. I can hardly stand to read the constructive comments amongst all the drama.
Most importantly, the issue at hand is 11-pool vs 14-pool. When you expand is for our purposes irrelevant because the difference between an 11/18 and a 14/18 is the pool opening. Now if we want to talk about hatch first builds then that is a different story, but between the 11 and 14 pool I see little difference (if we want to argue about when to expand, this is also a separate argument). I'll explain in as much detail as I can what the differences are between them.
1) When does the pool go down? 11-Pool 1:34 14-Pool 1:53
A ~19 second difference.
2) When is the 21st larva produced from the hatch? 11-Pool 2:56 14-Pool 2:48
This demonstrates that the 11-Pool's larva production is delayed by ~8 seconds.
3) How many minerals mined after 3:00 11-Pool 1270 14-Pool 1320
This shows the difference in minerals mined is ~70 at 3:00 (average appears to be ~50).
Now, the test I ran to get these results was an 11 and 14 pool build where I made a pool, 2 overlords, and 19 drones (one becomes the pool). Of course, the build I used for the test is not a build you would use in a game, but rather is a build that allows us to test the difference economically between the 11 and 14 pool because all other factors are controlled.
Now, if both builds get their queen right after the spawning pool finishes, then the 11-pool compensates for its ~8 second larva delay by producing 4 larva ~19 seconds faster than the 14-pool. This would explain why we expect to see a reversal of economic positions around the 6 minute mark. I believe the question should be, what are you planning on doing with that 50 mineral lead between 3:00 and 6:00?
Markwerf, you said that no one cares if this build is ahead at 6 minutes. Can you elaborate as to what exactly that temporary 50 mineral advantage will be used for? You shouldn't have any extra larva to spend it on, and even if you did, wouldn't you simply be playing catch up to the larva delay you incurred by getting your pool/queen ~19 seconds later? All I can foresee is that you'd put down your next building (a hatch, perhaps) 2-5 seconds earlier.
I, attempting to be as objective as I can, see no substantial benefit to going 14 pool instead of 11-pool. Please, if anyone disagrees, construct a response less vile than the recent posts and explain in similar detail how something I've done here is in error or what benefit I may have overlooked, etc. Also, I think we should avoid using personal anecdotes as much as possible in order to discuss these differences objectively. We all know that none of us are good enough ourselves or face opponents good enough to test the validity of either build in ideal level play. No, by the way, 2000 D is not good. No, 2200 D isn't good either. Perhaps at 2700+ I'd personally have marginal respect for someone's anecdotes, but even then, I play at the 2400 range and I know how terrible everyone is at that level.
Thanks in advance.
Replays for your review:
Expanding on this, a quick series of tests give, taking 12 pool as a standard:
14 pool = 13 seconds late on pool : ~35 more minerals : 1.3 fewer larvae 13 pool = 6 seconds late on pool : ~20 more minerals : 0.6 fewer larvae 11 overpool = 6 seconds early on pool : ~15 fewer minerals : ~5 seconds delayed on larvae : 0.27 more larvae 12 poolover = 10 seconds early on pool : ~73 fewer minerals : ~7 seconds delayed on larvae : 0.53 more larvae 11 poolover = 20 seconds early on pool : ~66 fewer minerals : ~15 seconds delayed on larvae : 1 more larvae 10 pool = 27 seconds early on pool : ~140 fewer minerals : ~16 seconds delayed on larvae : 1.63 more larvae 9 pool = 34 seconds early on pool ; ~140 fewer minerals : ~27 seconds delayed on larvae : 1.6 more larvae
The final column is an average -- it comes scoring seconds delayed as -x/15, and seconds early on pool as +4x/40.
On December 10 2010 09:01 Shikyo wrote: ^ You can do the first one earlier... your drone will just have to stay as an extractor for a while longer. I'm not sure which way is faster.
12overpool has 0 larva downtime though, so it will have the "21st" larva referred to in the long post above out at the same time as a 14pool would.
What advantage does 12 overpool have over just 12 pooling the ordinary way? IIRC 11 and 9 overlord both leave you with more minerals than 12 overlord.
You get your 10th, 11th, and 12th drones way earlier and with normal 9ov build you still would need to wait a long time. The reason 12ov here doesn't give you less minerals is because you're going to be waiting for enough minerals for the pool while the overlord is building anyway, there's no downtime while you're waiting for ov anyway.
I note that you haven't actually claimed to have tested it to see if the good points you are espousing outweigh the bad points you're ignoring....
I have tested it, and I just did so again -- 11 Overlord got the 200 minerals for the 12 Pool about 1.5 seconds sooner than 12 Overlord did.
How on earth do you even do 11 overlord 12pool? extrick, overlord, double extractor trick, 12th drone? What the.
On December 10 2010 09:01 Shikyo wrote: ^ You can do the first one earlier... your drone will just have to stay as an extractor for a while longer. I'm not sure which way is faster.
12overpool has 0 larva downtime though, so it will have the "21st" larva referred to in the long post above out at the same time as a 14pool would.
What advantage does 12 overpool have over just 12 pooling the ordinary way? IIRC 11 and 9 overlord both leave you with more minerals than 12 overlord.
You get your 10th, 11th, and 12th drones way earlier and with normal 9ov build you still would need to wait a long time. The reason 12ov here doesn't give you less minerals is because you're going to be waiting for enough minerals for the pool while the overlord is building anyway, there's no downtime while you're waiting for ov anyway.
I note that you haven't actually claimed to have tested it to see if the good points you are espousing outweigh the bad points you're ignoring....
I have tested it, and I just did so again -- 11 Overlord got the 200 minerals for the 12 Pool about 1.5 seconds sooner than 12 Overlord did.
How on earth do you even do 11 overlord 12pool? extrick, overlord, double extractor trick, 12th drone? What the.
Extractor trick, overlord, patiently wait for overlord to finish, make one Drone, then pool. All in all, I think it works out to being a tiny bit better than 9 overlord.
On December 10 2010 09:01 Shikyo wrote: ^ You can do the first one earlier... your drone will just have to stay as an extractor for a while longer. I'm not sure which way is faster.
12overpool has 0 larva downtime though, so it will have the "21st" larva referred to in the long post above out at the same time as a 14pool would.
What advantage does 12 overpool have over just 12 pooling the ordinary way? IIRC 11 and 9 overlord both leave you with more minerals than 12 overlord.
You get your 10th, 11th, and 12th drones way earlier and with normal 9ov build you still would need to wait a long time. The reason 12ov here doesn't give you less minerals is because you're going to be waiting for enough minerals for the pool while the overlord is building anyway, there's no downtime while you're waiting for ov anyway.
I note that you haven't actually claimed to have tested it to see if the good points you are espousing outweigh the bad points you're ignoring....
I have tested it, and I just did so again -- 11 Overlord got the 200 minerals for the 12 Pool about 1.5 seconds sooner than 12 Overlord did.
How on earth do you even do 11 overlord 12pool? extrick, overlord, double extractor trick, 12th drone? What the.
Extractor trick, overlord, patiently wait for overlord to finish, make one Drone, then pool. All in all, I think it works out to being a tiny bit better than 9 overlord.
Oh okay I tested it, I didn't really see any difference in pool timing but might be my execution. I'm not sure if that gets to three larvae at one point, but if it doesn't and if it's faster, I guess that's the way to do it, since at least you save 6 minerals.
According to my tests here, 11overlord 12pool feels a lot worse. You get the ling after the Queen way later, the larva delay feels to be at least 5 seconds. It can't be that I do the build so much worse than the 12ovpool. The drone timings are later as well. Doesn't make up for the 1 second faster pool and 6 mineral save.
Personally I'm ever more curious about the 11-OL / 12-Pool. It apparently only delays the pool by ~5 seconds, eliminates the larva waste (had to round up to 1 second), and appears to perform better economically, although I cant say for sure because I didn't run a multitude of trials.
Personally I'm ever more curious about the 11-OL / 12-Pool. It apparently only delays the pool by ~5 seconds, eliminates the larva waste (had to round up to 1 second), and appears to perform better economically, although I cant say for sure because I didn't run a multitude of trials.
I must say I've never liked the practice of measuring "seconds of larva waste." It doesn't take into account the timing of the queens or injections. A build that wastes 6 seconds of larva time, but then gets an injection 15 seconds earlier, is going to be WAY ahead. Maybe if you compared "seconds of larva waste" to "seconds of queen injection waste" it would make a little more sense, but even then it is not really a solid criteria for comparison imo.
I also wish you wouldn't post test results that are inferior to the results I've already provided. You should always post the better of two results imo.
We have our final game from crixus here. I want to thank him for doing a great job showcasing this build against high-level opponents. He went 3-0 until he finally lost to HasHe. The early game clearly favored crixus to win his fourth game, but a poor battle engagement and a few macro mistakes allowed HasHe to claw his way back to a win.
I don't get the point of posting these individual games. There are so many things that happen after the initial opening that affect the outcome that you'd need data from a crapload of games between very solid players for it to be meaningful in deciding which opening is better.
I think that a HUGE factor that's being ignored here is that, assuming your opponent wants to keep you from taking your natural expansion if at all possible, he'll be in a better position to do so if you wait until 18 food to expand because zerglings and drones fight better in low-food battles. There's a specific point in time after any expansion is started that is the opponent's optimal chance you use your temporary economic loss to bust your expansion and put you behind. You DON'T want that time to coincide with when his army is starting to get that critical mass that makes it way more effective.
On December 11 2010 02:28 adius wrote: I don't get the point of posting these individual games. There are so many things that happen after the initial opening that affect the outcome that you'd need data from a crapload of games between very solid players for it to be meaningful in deciding which opening is better.
I think that a HUGE factor that's being ignored here is that, assuming your opponent wants to keep you from taking your natural expansion if at all possible, he'll be in a better position to do so if you wait until 18 food to expand because zerglings and drones fight better in low-food battles. There's a specific point in time after any expansion is started that is the opponent's optimal chance you use your temporary economic loss to bust your expansion and put you behind. You DON'T want that time to coincide with when his army is starting to get that critical mass that makes it way more effective.
The point of posting all these individual games is to show that this build can defeat solid diamond players from all three races going a wide range of strategies. This will certainly help put to rest whether the build is "viable" or not. Clearly with the data we have, the build is viable. Now the debate is focusing towards details like how the seconds of delayed hatch affects early pressure.
I think using supply terms really clouds the reality for some people. First of all, we have a queen building which is taking 2 supply, so really it is like a 16 hatch. And also consider that most pool-first builds would have included an early extractor anyways, decreasing their supply by 1 as well.
I'm just saying, it is more helpful to look at the game clock instead of supply.
Mmh I must say I used the build order or at least I build my pool at eleven and then played however I felt like and it worked good. I feel it is less vulnerable to allmost any kinds of cheeses and can still be nice economywise. I am a low level diamond player if anyone is interested in this. For me it just feels alot saver than 14/15 hatch and then pool and is on the other hand still quiet fast with the economy build up. Other than that its probably just a matter of preferance...
If you feel safe you're probably doing something bad. Zerg is about holding off attacks by the skin of your teeth! And to some extent the other races are, too.
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?
Against Z, anything really works. In a perfect world, you'll just be one step or one drone ahead of your opponent. If he 14 pools, you 15 pool. If he 20 pools, you 21 pool. Basically like in BW until the queen pops out. But by that time, build orders are out of the door and it's about unit comp/unit counters/reading and reacting to your opponent.
I have no emperical data to base all this on but I would just like to add some input
On December 11 2010 03:16 adius wrote: If you feel safe you're probably doing something bad. Zerg is about holding off attacks by the skin of your teeth! And to some extent the other races are, too.
By safe we are just saying we have the flexibility of defending against many possible attacks.
For example, if I hatch first, I don't feel safe because I know if he goes 2rax, my options are limited, and whoever wins depends upon how well my opponent micros. But with this build, I know I have the option of pumping tons of lings if I need to to defend the attack.
So of course, surviving by the skin of your teeth would mean building just enough lings to stop the attack without sacrificing drones. The build doesn't force anyone to overcommit to defense. The flexibility, not the units, is what makes it safe.
On December 11 2010 03:16 adius wrote: If you feel safe you're probably doing something bad. Zerg is about holding off attacks by the skin of your teeth! And to some extent the other races are, too.
By safe we are just saying we have the flexibility of defending against many possible attacks.
For example, if I hatch first, I don't feel safe because I know if he goes 2rax, my options are limited, and whoever wins depends upon how well my opponent micros. But with this build, I know I have the option of pumping tons of lings if I need to to defend the attack.
So of course, surviving by the skin of your teeth would mean building just enough lings to stop the attack without sacrificing drones. The build doesn't force anyone to overcommit to defense. The flexibility, not the units, is what makes it safe.
Please read my post above. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just seeing what you think of my argument.
What if the T decides to walk over with a few marines and forces you to make more zergling (thus taking an economic hit) and then marches back to his wall in?
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...
I've been using this build all week in every match up as a mid-diamond player and I love it. I've never had my hatch delayed or stopped enough to prevent it from going up. In-fact in most cases I defend any early aggression with lings, 2 queen, 1 spine, and still have plenty of drones. Once your 2nd hatch is up you can take an econ lead over your opponent and still have an army to pressure.
One main reason I like this build vs a hatch first build:
- in a hatch first build you may have to defend early aggression with drones + lings. What do you think this does to your economy? In the 11p18h build you can defend the exact same early aggression with your early queen + the early lings you can make while still having 16 drones mining minerals the entire time.
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.
On December 11 2010 02:26 jacobman wrote: For anyone that is still making up their mind about the 11 pool build, here is something that you might find informative:
That is indeed very interesting, seems like 13p 15h should pretty much solve all the issues people are having with the 11p 18h builds vs 2rax. More larva than hatch first, faster spine crawler at the natural than hatch first (262s vs 267s). Of course optimal drone micro that thread uses is useful for getting consistent and comparable results but hopefully it doesn't matter too much in practice as optimal worker micro past the first 9 or so is pretty rough.
On December 10 2010 21:15 Shikyo wrote: According to my tests here, 11overlord 12pool feels a lot worse. You get the ling after the Queen way later, the larva delay feels to be at least 5 seconds. It can't be that I do the build so much worse than the 12ovpool. The drone timings are later as well. Doesn't make up for the 1 second faster pool and 6 mineral save.
It's weird that you see larva delay -- I chose 12 pool (whether via 9 overlord or via 11 overlord) specifically because it's the earliest Pool that doesn't have paused larvae.
Are you maybe doing a 10 scout before the Overlord? Or sticking with the OP's original testing plan of rallying all Drones to the same (far) mineral patch? I'm trying to think of things you might possibly have done differently.
I've been using kinda the same build. 11pool and then 18 or later hatch.
This one is more refined though. It's a good general build vs all three races. Open for adaptation. I really don't know why everyone is arguing about this. I prefer it over 15p/14h or 15h/14p because it seems safer and more flexible. I hate feeling like a sitting duck when I hatch first waiting for my pool.
Just wanted to say also. This is a good thread ruined by trolls, ignorant flamers and people who are out for a fight. (I've read the first 5-6 pages or so hoping for a good discussion but...)
Personally I'm ever more curious about the 11-OL / 12-Pool. It apparently only delays the pool by ~5 seconds, eliminates the larva waste (had to round up to 1 second), and appears to perform better economically, although I cant say for sure because I didn't run a multitude of trials.
I also wish you wouldn't post test results that are inferior to the results I've already provided. You should always post the better of two results imo.
When I tested 11 overpool vs 14 pool, I got results similar to those he posted. I understand that you'll fight to the death defending this build at this point, but logically, it doesn't make sense that 11 overlord -> pool -> drone -> drone -> drone would mine as many minerals in the early game as 11 overlord -> drone -> drone -> drone -> pool. The drones in the 11-16 food period are earlier for the 14 pool. 11 pool sacrifices early minerals relative to 14 pool in exchange for an earlier queen.
Yes, I dont understand why this is so controversial. It was established already during beta that you dont (economically speaking) need a finished expo until your main is saturated. That means, with 3 workers on gas and 2 initial Zerglings, and a queen; ie the expo should be finished at about 22 food at which point you do a maynard with 8 drones. I dont know exactly when it has to be started to be finished at about 22 food, but 18 seems reasonable when considering spending drones on building buildings.
This describes a perfect economic opening. Then there are other resources to take into account; larvaeproduction, a possible negative effect on total gas, unit-timings in relation to opponent etc.
On December 11 2010 02:10 jdseemoreglass wrote: We have our final game from crixus here. I want to thank him for doing a great job showcasing this build against high-level opponents. He went 3-0 until he finally lost to HasHe. The early game clearly favored crixus to win his fourth game, but a poor battle engagement and a few macro mistakes allowed HasHe to claw his way back to a win.
By poor engage ment, you mean losing my entire army for nothing =P
Cant believe I diddnt see an empty extractor at my gold -.-
Personally I'm ever more curious about the 11-OL / 12-Pool. It apparently only delays the pool by ~5 seconds, eliminates the larva waste (had to round up to 1 second), and appears to perform better economically, although I cant say for sure because I didn't run a multitude of trials.
I also wish you wouldn't post test results that are inferior to the results I've already provided. You should always post the better of two results imo.
When I tested 11 overpool vs 14 pool, I got results similar to those he posted. I understand that you'll fight to the death defending this build at this point, but logically, it doesn't make sense that 11 overlord -> pool -> drone -> drone -> drone would mine as many minerals in the early game as 11 overlord -> drone -> drone -> drone -> pool. The drones in the 11-16 food period are earlier for the 14 pool. 11 pool sacrifices early minerals relative to 14 pool in exchange for an earlier queen.
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...
Personally I'm ever more curious about the 11-OL / 12-Pool. It apparently only delays the pool by ~5 seconds, eliminates the larva waste (had to round up to 1 second), and appears to perform better economically, although I cant say for sure because I didn't run a multitude of trials.
I also wish you wouldn't post test results that are inferior to the results I've already provided. You should always post the better of two results imo.
When I tested 11 overpool vs 14 pool, I got results similar to those he posted. I understand that you'll fight to the death defending this build at this point, but logically, it doesn't make sense that 11 overlord -> pool -> drone -> drone -> drone would mine as many minerals in the early game as 11 overlord -> drone -> drone -> drone -> pool. The drones in the 11-16 food period are earlier for the 14 pool. 11 pool sacrifices early minerals relative to 14 pool in exchange for an earlier queen.
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...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One replay with a lot of flaws does not constitute adequate evidence that you can get more minerals by building your Drones later while otherwise building exactly the same things.
(And I don't see an 11 pool vs 14 pool clearly indicated in the OP -- just that 11 pool vs 15 hatch that people were criticizing, that I assume you're referring to)
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.
Personally I'm ever more curious about the 11-OL / 12-Pool. It apparently only delays the pool by ~5 seconds, eliminates the larva waste (had to round up to 1 second), and appears to perform better economically, although I cant say for sure because I didn't run a multitude of trials.
I also wish you wouldn't post test results that are inferior to the results I've already provided. You should always post the better of two results imo.
When I tested 11 overpool vs 14 pool, I got results similar to those he posted. I understand that you'll fight to the death defending this build at this point, but logically, it doesn't make sense that 11 overlord -> pool -> drone -> drone -> drone would mine as many minerals in the early game as 11 overlord -> drone -> drone -> drone -> pool. The drones in the 11-16 food period are earlier for the 14 pool. 11 pool sacrifices early minerals relative to 14 pool in exchange for an earlier queen.
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...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One replay with a lot of flaws does not constitute adequate evidence that you can get more minerals by building your Drones later while otherwise building exactly the same things.
(And I don't see an 11 pool vs 14 pool clearly indicated in the OP -- just that 11 pool vs 15 hatch that people were criticizing, that I assume you're referring to)
You clearly don't understand the debate here... I posted a replay showing I can get 1324 minerals by the 3:00 mark using 11Pool, and they are completely ignoring it and claiming you can only get 1200 or so... I just want them to stop using inferior numbers to help their arguments.
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
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.
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.
I've been experimenting with this lately and I've been having moderate success with it. It works great against early rushes, as it gives you a quick pool and an expansion to grow on.
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?
Data from the thread that jacobman mentioned (where we have the AI execute the build orders rather than relying on fallible human comparisons) seems to indicate that OP's testing methodology was flawed and inconsistent, and that 13p15h is in fact superior to 11p both economically and in larvae production, and seems (at least so far) to be the *best* compromise between hatch time and early queen production.
I still think the 11pool's psychological effect can be absolutely HUGE, and it's worth having in your repertoire for that reason alone, and I think it would be a lot harder to turn 13p15h into insane early one-base pressure.
But to be quite frank, the OP has gone from informant to fanatic over the course of this thread, and although I was one of the ones defending him and this build early (because his results coincided with my own testing), at this point he's flat out ridiculing any data that doesn't match his own (even when that data is far more consistent and reliable), and is doing the thread an even bigger disservice than he's done already.
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.
Another thing that came from the AI testing: it's *very* difficult to get consistent readings, even if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything is happening exactly the same way every game, and that extremely small things (such as where exactly a larva happens to be when a drone is made from it, or how exactly you manage any sort of worker transfer) can make large differences at the end of 6 minutes.
Any economic results with a difference of less than 70 or 80 minerals can very easily be attributed to these small variances, because until I added extra work to make things even more consistent, I saw that much variance in the AI executing the same build order over and over with *exactly* the same timings every game.
just tried this against a 2100+ terran who raged quit on me. very nice strat so far but i will keep needing to tune it. still not sure when to get that extractor exactly. ty!
On December 11 2010 10:03 Vaporized wrote: 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.
13pool/15hatch (which as far as I can tell, actually appears to be the *best* pool-first build economically, despite the OP's flawed results) gets the hatch up reasonably quickly, doesn't make as much of an economic sacrifice as 11pool, *and* gets about a 2 larvae advantage over both 11pool and 14hatch builds.
To be honest, though, if you *can* hold with 14hatch, then that's exactly what you should do. 14h followed by 15 or 14pool is clearly better economically than any pool-first build, by a significant amount.
But if larvae is your concern, 13p15h appears to beat everything else out, at least up through the first 6 minutes.
Skrag, I believe that the first rule of the strategy forum is "everything you say must be supported by evidence."
If you would just provide any evidence at all that my data is flawed, then I would listen to it. You have no data, only claims that my testing is flawed. I have my evidence. Until anyone in this entire thread can post a single replay outperforming my 11Pool replay, then I would appreciate it if everyone would stop repeating things that cannot be supported by evidence.
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.
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.
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 11:06 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
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:
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 08:19 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:
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.
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.
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 11:43 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.
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 11:43 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?
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.
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.
This is exactly my point by the way, and exactly why I'm bashing YOU and not the build.
You have obviously made what seems like an honest and understandable mistake (the third time I watched the replay, I figured out exactly what you must have done by being momentarily confused myself). But when you make this mistake (YOU making the mistake, not me), instead of trying to figure out what's going on, you flame away and tell me to stop trolling.
Which is how you've treated every single criticism or question in this thread, which is a HUGE disservice to a build that is clearly viable and useful, but that many people will ignore simply because you've been such a gigantic moron.
On December 11 2010 11:56 Skrag wrote: you've been such a gigantic moron.
It is statements such as these that are the reason I am calling you a troll...
I'm sorry, in normal replays clicking on the player was enough to see their mineral count. I am analyzing the replay data now...
Yes, and a normal person would have tried to figure out what was going on (since I was clearly able to watch the replay), and *asked* instead of immediately opening up with the flamethrower.
So yes, you've been a gigantic moron, and frankly I'm pretty pissed off about it.
No, but seriously: these last few pages has contained a lot of bashing back and forth. We need to make this an constructive conversation again.
What are you really discussing? Who's bashing who? Which scientific method is best for evaluating build orders? If 11 pool 18 hatch is a viable build? If the OP build is the most economical Zerg build? Which thread to discuss this in?
On December 11 2010 11:56 Skrag wrote: you've been such a gigantic moron.
It is statements such as these that are the reason I am calling you a troll...
I'm sorry, in normal replays clicking on the player was enough to see their mineral count. I am analyzing the replay data now...
Yes, and a normal person would have tried to figure out what was going on (since I was clearly able to watch the replay), and *asked* instead of immediately opening up with the flamethrower.
So yes, you've been a gigantic moron, and frankly I'm pretty pissed off about it.
I didn't flame anyone. I just want you to stop bashing me on my thread. Be a little more courteous and calm down. That's all I want.
So I took the results. At 3:00 the player has 1380 compared to my 1324. At 6:00, the player has 3995 compared to my posted 3879.
There is a complication due to the fact that the replay provided paused for a couple seconds before beginning. If you would like me to concede that an AI beat my results, then fine, I concede that an AI beat my results. I'm not sure how you got the 150 minerals, and honestly I don't really care. I'm just eager to get this behind us already and focus on the actual build.
On December 11 2010 12:13 Blueblister wrote: What are you really discussing? Who's bashing who? Which scientific method is best for evaluating build orders? If 11 pool 18 hatch is a viable build? If the OP build is the most economical Zerg build?
1) I'm bashing JD, he's bashing me.
2) Clearly any testing method that removes the human error component, while still actually being a test of the actual game, rather than a simplified build order calculator, is superior.
3) It's absolutely a viable build. The psychological effects of the super early pool alone are worth adding it to your repertoire even if there is some economic sacrifice.
4) The OP's own data shows that hatch-first builds are superior economically, but he's made the claim that it is more economic than any other pool-first build, and that claim appears to be false, with 13p15h being the likely winner economically, with a nice compromise between a fast queen, a reasonably timed hatchery, and no early larva loss.
First of all, i've been following the "debate" (well, it was one at the beginning) from the first thread. I have been really curious about this build, so i tested it on about 100-120 games (ZvP and ZvT, no ZvZ since i never prepare BO in ZvZ), mostly training games with teammates (2000-2400 range).
So, yeah, it's pretty surprizing how efficient it is, for a first pool build. After all these games, my conclusion is that it is a pleasant alternative to 14h15p, yet, i prefer to hatch first. I've got the feeling that it isn't safer at all : bunker rush is the same, you are supply block at 18, which is very very annoying, and makes mistakes easier to be done, creep is very late, which is especially important in the current metagame, and finally it does not fare better against 2rax than 14h15p. Interesting things to note is that you have some chance the guy may overreact if he's not used to it, which makes in those cases the build very viable.
Anyway, i'm reverting to 14h15p, because it feels more solid play to me. But i may adopt it if there are high level play displaying it (by high level, i mean top progamers).
Now, on another hand, I have to tell that I was totally DISGUSTED by what the way the 2 thread turned. First of all i was enthousiastic, really pleased to see something constructive about early zerg come out. Then, all became revolving around one build, and the OP began being totally biaised about it. Basically, you have been ignoring or flaming any critics, accusing them most of the time of trolling. You only see what you wanna see, it feels like this build is your baby, and you have to defend it no matter what, because your baby is the most beautiful baby in the world. No matter what people say. For someone like me who really enjoyed your effort at the start, it leaves a really bad taste.
I had a hard time carrying my experiments with this build, just because of your attitude. Which is really sad (and counter-productive for your baby).
Since i'm not saying that this build is the best build ever, etc, etc, i'm not welcome here, but that were my 2cents anyway, for those who actually care about unbiaised POV.
PS : You should remove the question mark, since apparently you have now stated you would not accept further critics, constructive or not. Also same idea, the [D] is irrelevant now.
PPS : Excuse my english.
PPPS : Don't get me wrong, i appreciate the efforts and the build a lot. I just don't like the atmosphere of the threads and the alleged debate.
Guys, please, stop attacking me. There is no need for ten people to pile up on the OP. I haven't flamed anyone. I'm just tired of people spouting bullshit on my thread, so I have to defend myself until they provide actual evidence.
Skrag has finally provided a replay that I can analyze, so I have conceded this his testing method has yielded superior results to the 11Pool. Can we stop all the attacks now? I know this is the internet, but this is getting fucking ridiculous...
On December 11 2010 12:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: I didn't flame anyone. I just want you to stop bashing me on my thread. Be a little more courteous and calm down. That's all I want.
Really?
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.
That sounds a whole hell of a lot like a flame to me, calling the results "garbage" and "a waste of time".
So I took the results. At 3:00 the player has 1380 compared to my 1324. At 6:00, the player has 3995 compared to my posted 3879.
How are you measuring, and how are you ensuring you hit right at the 6:00 mark? I measured using the spending + banked resources method, and the 13p was 156 ahead. As for ensuring you hit the mark, if you let the timer go to anywhere between 6:11-6:19, pause, and then hit 'b' once, it will back up to exactly 6 minutes.
There is a complication due to the fact that the replay provided paused for a couple seconds before beginning. If you would like me to concede that an AI beat my results, then fine, I concede that an AI beat my results. I'm not sure how you got the 150 minerals, and honestly I don't really care. I'm just eager to get this behind us already and focus on the actual build.
An AI beat your results, but that same AI showed 11pool being economically *behind* the 13pool.
So can we finally put this to rest:
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.
Since it has been shown that human error is a big enough factor that your replays aren't truly valid comparisons, and that now that we do have a completely consistent and repeatable way of comparing builds, those comparisons show 11pool to be economically behind other pool-first builds?
As for you asking somebody else to be courteous and calm down, well that's pretty much laughable from every angle.
Oh yeah, and lets not forget your post in the other thread where we have actually put a ridiculous amount of effort trying to determine if YOUR claims were correct.
Lol this thread is funny...
I've already shown with empirical evidence that 13P/15H is inferior economically to 11Pool, and the debate continues...
I know you guys are using some program or something for all your results... When you can post results than can beat this, then let me know.
Yeah, laughing at other people's hard work, without even taking the time to attempt to understand what's going on, was totally courteous of you, and not bashing at all.
Without knowing that the replay didn't allow clicking players, then the replay was garbage to me, and a waste of my time. If you call such a statement flaming, then we clearly have different definitions. I never attacked or flamed or bashed anyone, in my opinion. You on the other hand repeatedly attacked me personally, even resorting to name-calling, and when I ask you to be courteous you say it is laughable...
To reach the 6:00 mark, I used the replay bar and moved it to exactly 6:00. At that time, the resources spent = 4650 + resources owned = 45 - initial resources spent 700 = 3995
If you provide a replay of the 11Pool build using the same methods, then I will be happy to update the OP graph to reflect the results.
On December 11 2010 12:28 Skrag wrote: Oh yeah, and lets not forget your post in the other thread where we have actually put a ridiculous amount of effort trying to determine if YOUR claims were correct.
I've already shown with empirical evidence that 13P/15H is inferior economically to 11Pool, and the debate continues...
I know you guys are using some program or something for all your results... When you can post results than can beat this, then let me know.
Yeah, laughing at other people's hard work, without even taking the time to attempt to understand what's going on, was totally courteous of you, and not bashing at all.
It was funny that so much data was being used without anyone being able to actually watch a replay and verify the data. I requested the data once it became available. Again, if you call this flaming, then clearly we have different definitions.
You know, the thing that pisses me off the MOST about all of this is that there are some *really* cool things about an 11 overpool build, given that it can turn into a full-blown economic build that can compete with just about anything, but just as easily turn into super early aggression, but the way you have dealt with criticism in this thread has pretty much chased off everybody who could actually provide useful input, leaving most of the thread full of flamewars.
Hell, you even chased me off into another thread to try to get real, consistent, reproducible measurements, and I was one of the ones most vehemently defending the build early on in the thread.
Your blind fanatic single-mindedness has done far more to damage any real discussion in this thread than any of the critics have.
On December 11 2010 12:40 Skrag wrote: You know, the thing that pisses me off the MOST about all of this is that there are some *really* cool things about an 11 overpool build, given that it can turn into a full-blown economic build that can compete with just about anything, but just as easily turn into super early aggression, but the way you have dealt with criticism in this thread has pretty much chased off everybody who could actually provide useful input, leaving most of the thread full of flamewars.
Hell, you even chased me off into another thread to try to get real, consistent, reproducible measurements, and I was one of the ones most vehemently defending the build early on in the thread.
Your blind fanatic single-mindedness has done far more to damage any real discussion in this thread than any of the critics have.
I am not fanatical and single-minded... I just want all claims to be supported by evidence. Any arguments or criticisms that fail to reach this criteria will be ignored or criticized. You have provided actual evidence, and I am not being fanatical. I have conceded 3 times now that your testing method is better. You have made about 10 posts attacking me in this thread today alone, and I would appreciate it if you would either start being civil and apologize for the personal attacks or leave the thread altogether.
I was using 3839 for the 18pool resources, which is what I measured from your replay a while back. If the replay has since then been updated with a better one, then that explains my 150 vs your 116.
Jacobman has posted replays of all the builds in the other thread. Looking at his 11pool replay, it shows 3914 at 6 minutes, indicating that your 11pool build was much closer to optimal than your 13pool build, which is only to be expected given how much practice you have on the 11pool, and is part of the reason an attempt to objectively measure was needed to begin with.
My version shows better results, with 4095 minerals for 13pool, and 3975 for 11pool, mainly because I did true total optimization for the first 19 drones, loading up the closer mineral patches with 2 workers as soon as possible, and sending all of the first 19 to a patch that would not interrupt any mining time by having bouncing workers (or minimizing the bouncing in cases where it was impossible to get rid of entirely) but the 11 pool is pretty consistently about 100 minerals behind at the 6 minute mark.
Having said all that, there are some very real benefits to pooling at 11 rather than 13 or 14 that very well could be worth a small sacrifice of minerals. But you haven't let the thread be about what sacrifice is worthwhile, claiming only that there was no sacrifice at all, even when the evidence pointed to the contrary.
On December 11 2010 10:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: Skrag, I believe that the first rule of the strategy forum is "everything you say must be supported by evidence."
If you would just provide any evidence at all that my data is flawed, then I would listen to it. You have no data, only claims that my testing is flawed. I have my evidence. Until anyone in this entire thread can post a single replay outperforming my 11Pool replay, then I would appreciate it if everyone would stop repeating things that cannot be supported by evidence.
It's not your data that is flawed. Your data is fine. It's your methodology. The problem is that your graphs are based off of single on the spot trials. There is a lot of variance in each test, so that data doesn't really represent the builds. You didn't even use the best replays available at the time for the graphs.
Really the only way to be able to compare things well with your method is to do each build 10-20 times. Trials where the build was messed up need to be thrown out. After all of that you can compare the averages which is much more indicative of each build.
AI allows you to not worry about being consistent with each trial. I would guess you would just need more trials if you were to do it by hand to make up for the inconsistency in human play.
On December 11 2010 12:56 Skrag wrote: But you haven't let the thread be about what sacrifice is worthwhile, claiming only that there was no sacrifice at all, even when the evidence pointed to the contrary.
I denied that there was no sacrifice, because my tests showed there was no sacrifice, and no one was able to provide data to the contrary until about 5 days later lol...
Just for reference, I didn't supply the replays to compare to other replays economically. I did not spend time picking the best replay for each build. There are likely replays that yield better final results. The replays are just one of my data points that I used to get the average numbers I posted. I simply put one of the trials up in order for the AIs execution to be able to be looked at in case I made a mistake with the AI in one of them.
Once the opportunity for flaming disappears, Skrag leaves as quickly as he came...
No apology for turning my thread into a childish mudslinging battle for hours... He attacks me and calls me a jackass twice, a moron twice, a blind-single-minded fanatic, and so on, and he won't even bother to end with a civil comment after I give him what he wants.
Trying to provide for the TL community is really not worth the trouble it entails... which explains a lot.
On December 11 2010 13:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: Once the opportunity for flaming disappears, Skrag leaves as quickly as he came...
No apology for turning my thread into a childish mudslinging battle for hours... He attacks me and calls me a jackass twice, a moron twice, a blind-single-minded fanatic, and so on, and he won't even bother to end with a civil comment after I give him what he wants.
Trying to provide for the TL community is really not worth the trouble it entails... which explains a lot.
Yeah, I prefer to try and avoid all of the name calling as much as possible. I'm not sure what order things happened, but you did make an unwarranted comment on the other thread too
He was probably more annoyed, as was I, that you kind of gave up on any testing so easy. It just appeared that you were trying to champion the 11P/18H as something it might not be no matter what. The reason I really stopped arguing before was because it was obvious that it would take a while to get more reliable data, and I didn't want to stir the pot far before I could really give any evidence. After our first discussion like 5 days ago I started trying to think of ways to work with the huge discrepancies in results from replay to replay. It seemed like an obvious problem that was making it hard to really be sure about any conclusions based on our replays.
I have to say I really like this build in team games. 1v1... I'm not really sold because creep spread is so important and the opposition can force you to get zerglings before you put down the hatch on 18 making you way behind in the long run. I could see it being effective in PvZ... but for the other two matchups I don't think its ideal.
On December 11 2010 13:52 grannock wrote: I have to say I really like this build in team games. 1v1... I'm not really sold because creep spread is so important and the opposition can force you to get zerglings before you put down the hatch on 18 making you way behind in the long run. I could see it being effective in PvZ... but for the other two matchups I don't think its ideal.
BTW 2100 1v1, 1700 2v2 team.
If you have a replay of this problem people are claiming to have, of having to make zerglings before hatch, I would love to see them. I have heard this several times but haven't been able to actually witness what people mean, or how it would differ from a hatch-first play.
Hatch first will certainly allow you to get an earlier spine, but I don't see why it is necessary to sacrifice so many drones because of the short time between spine placement...
I heard some people say that zealot aggression would hurt this build. I actually encountered a game on the ladder where someone got quite a few early zealots and put 4gate pressure early on. Here is a rep for those interested. I suppose they are referring to earlier pressure, but I've yet to encounter this on the ladder.
On December 11 2010 13:52 grannock wrote: I have to say I really like this build in team games. 1v1... I'm not really sold because creep spread is so important and the opposition can force you to get zerglings before you put down the hatch on 18 making you way behind in the long run. I could see it being effective in PvZ... but for the other two matchups I don't think its ideal.
BTW 2100 1v1, 1700 2v2 team.
If you have a replay of this problem people are claiming to have, of having to make zerglings before hatch, I would love to see them. I have heard this several times but haven't been able to actually witness what people mean, or how it would differ from a hatch-first play.
Hatch first will certainly allow you to get an earlier spine, but I don't see why it is necessary to sacrifice so many drones because of the short time between spine placement...
I heard some people say that zealot aggression would hurt this build. I actually encountered a game on the ladder where someone got quite a few early zealots and put 4gate pressure early on. Here is a rep for those interested. I suppose they are referring to earlier pressure, but I've yet to encounter this on the ladder.
Its early zealot aggression or a pylon at your natural + 1 zealot and probe. You would need at least 6 zerglings to fight it off and by the time your natural is up your extremely vulnerable to the 6 zealot 2 stalker 1 sentry push. The real problem with this build as you have posted it, is you are saving your 3rd overlord for after the hatchery. Against an aggressive opponent this will not be an option, which delays the hatch more, which then skews all of your data results.
Honestly, I have really never tried this in 1v1 because you cant scout on 9, and then you are very vulnerable to early pressure because your in the dark, and just praying that you can get a hatch off at 18. I dont see it working well. I have 800+ games played at the upper level of the diamond bracket and I see too many holes for this in 1v1. The >slight< advantage this has over a 14 pool is negligible because you are slightly stronger with 14pool prior to the first larva inject, which is when your fending off early probe/scv harass to put down your hatch.
Hatch delayed, no spines, you wont stand a chance against a an early non-allin from a terran or protoss, let alone an allin.
Like I said, I'm loving this build in my team games. It enables you to defend any cheese, or drone up hard if they are teching. Also, hatch first in 2v2 is very risky, so this strat allows for one to get a nasty econ without rolling the dice on if your opponent is rushing.
The issue with 1v1, is if you are good at hatch first, or vs a protoss, the 14 pool, you are not rolling the dice. You know its going to work, and its slightly better than this build you have posted. Sure for lower calliber players that cant stop the 10 pool, or the 3 zealot/5 marine rush, try this build out and you might like it for 1v1. For the players on the upper end of the ladder, there is no point because these early rushes lead to an easy victory after they are squashed.
Does any one know of any VODs of 14/15 hatch/pool vs 2 Rax FE on youtube? I want to throw the OP linked games and one of those on the doubler (http://www.youtubedoubler.com/) to compare stuff.
EDIT: I just trawled through the post GSL2 stuff on Husky's channel and no dice on an aggressive 2 Rax FE that was executed well. It doesn't help that he looks at completely random stuff either.
On December 11 2010 14:21 Antisocialmunky wrote: Does any one know of any VODs of 14/15 hatch/pool vs 2 Rax FE on youtube? I want to throw the OP linked games and one of those on the doubler (http://www.youtubedoubler.com/) to compare stuff.
I've seen plenty of Hatch-first vs. 2rax in the GSL... I doubt the reps on youtube will defend better than NesTea or IdrA, etc.
But yeah, I would love to see them either way. I hear people saying that a spine helps the defense but I've never seen a spine finish in time so I can't really assess this...
Hmm for defense vs 2rax a fast spine is very good.
Ret and IdrA have been working on a build were you get your 2nd overlord late in order to get a fast spine off your FE. If your doing the 11pool 18hatch you should be able to hold off 2rax easily enough, but if you have problems you also make a spine at ur main while ur FE is building and then move it over, assuming the walk distance isn't too big (could be tough on steppes).
I'm a little confused by the lack of replay reliability. I'm a 2,300 pt ranked 1v1 random diamond on NA and I'm considering trying each of these builds with perfect execution and see how they stack up. The main contenders are 14/15 hatch/pool vs 11/18 pool/hatch right? It seems easy enough to compare this across several games as an impartial 3rd party. Would this be useful?
On December 11 2010 14:40 Alternity wrote: Hmm for defense vs 2rax a fast spine is very good.
Ret and IdrA have been working on a build were you get your 2nd overlord late in order to get a fast spine off your FE. If your doing the 11pool 18hatch you should be able to hold off 2rax easily enough, but if you have problems you also make a spine at ur main while ur FE is building and then move it over, assuming the walk distance isn't too big (could be tough on steppes).
I'm a little confused by the lack of replay reliability. I'm a 2,300 pt ranked 1v1 random diamond on NA and I'm considering trying each of these builds with perfect execution and see how they stack up. The main contenders are 14/15 hatch/pool vs 11/18 pool/hatch right? It seems easy enough to compare this across several games as an impartial 3rd party. Would this be useful?
At this point, any replays from diamond players would be useful... I seem to be the only one posting them. It would be even more useful if someone had a practice partner who is competent at 2rax pushes so we could do some comparisons.
Was it Skrag who mentioned the AI had 4,000 APM while testing that build? For a layman, I hope you don't have to have insane APM to get consistently better results with the 13p/15h over the 11p/18h...I hope. Do we have replays of actual human players doing these builds and the differential still being about 150 minerals and more larvae?
On December 11 2010 14:40 Alternity wrote: Hmm for defense vs 2rax a fast spine is very good.
Ret and IdrA have been working on a build were you get your 2nd overlord late in order to get a fast spine off your FE. If your doing the 11pool 18hatch you should be able to hold off 2rax easily enough, but if you have problems you also make a spine at ur main while ur FE is building and then move it over, assuming the walk distance isn't too big (could be tough on steppes).
I'm a little confused by the lack of replay reliability. I'm a 2,300 pt ranked 1v1 random diamond on NA and I'm considering trying each of these builds with perfect execution and see how they stack up. The main contenders are 14/15 hatch/pool vs 11/18 pool/hatch right? It seems easy enough to compare this across several games as an impartial 3rd party. Would this be useful?
I'm not sure because I haven't done enough testing with human vs. AI to know how much human error comes into play when you have a person executing really well. If it is a significant effect, really that just means you need more trials to get reliable data. However I tend to think, given a person who can actually do perfect execution every time, the reliability should be same. The other thing to note is that even with AI/perfect execution there are differences which make it hard to compare some builds. These differences, surprisingly enough arise from the larva random walk. The drones are produced at different locations, which affects the state that they reach minerals at. If they reach a mineral patch at the wrong time they will find it occupied and waste time moving to other minerals. The only way to really get reliable results is perfect execution and have many trials to average. I am however naturally suspicious that a person will play exactly the same every time. Will they grab a drone for the expansion at the same point every time? Will they place the spawning pool at the same time? That's why I prefer AI. I don't have to wonder about those little things being an influence on the results.
Anyways, after that long winded response, if you want to try and show things with replays played by people, the more replays the better I suppose.
On December 11 2010 14:40 Alternity wrote: Hmm for defense vs 2rax a fast spine is very good.
Ret and IdrA have been working on a build were you get your 2nd overlord late in order to get a fast spine off your FE. If your doing the 11pool 18hatch you should be able to hold off 2rax easily enough, but if you have problems you also make a spine at ur main while ur FE is building and then move it over, assuming the walk distance isn't too big (could be tough on steppes).
I'm a little confused by the lack of replay reliability. I'm a 2,300 pt ranked 1v1 random diamond on NA and I'm considering trying each of these builds with perfect execution and see how they stack up. The main contenders are 14/15 hatch/pool vs 11/18 pool/hatch right? It seems easy enough to compare this across several games as an impartial 3rd party. Would this be useful?
At this point, any replays from diamond players would be useful... I seem to be the only one posting them. It would be even more useful if someone had a practice partner who is competent at 2rax pushes so we could do some comparisons.
I think this is a great idea, no matter what the build. Getting together and testing a build against different common builds is a great idea.
On December 11 2010 15:13 Enyalus wrote: Was it Skrag who mentioned the AI had 4,000 APM while testing that build? For a layman, I hope you don't have to have insane APM to get consistently better results with the 13p/15h over the 11p/18h...I hope. Do we have replays of actual human players doing these builds and the differential still being about 150 minerals and more larvae?
That early in the game considering there is no fighting involved does saying 4,000 APM even matter (meaning that this entire strategy can be accomplished in relatively small number of actions), doesn't that just suggest that the actions taken by the computer are almost instantaneous?
On December 11 2010 15:13 Enyalus wrote: Was it Skrag who mentioned the AI had 4,000 APM while testing that build? For a layman, I hope you don't have to have insane APM to get consistently better results with the 13p/15h over the 11p/18h...I hope. Do we have replays of actual human players doing these builds and the differential still being about 150 minerals and more larvae?
That early in the game considering there is no fighting involved does saying 4,000 APM even matter (meaning that this entire strategy can be accomplished in relatively small number of actions), doesn't that just suggest that the actions taken by the computer are almost instantaneous?
If you were just holding a button down you wouldn't hit 4000 apm.
On December 11 2010 15:13 Enyalus wrote: Was it Skrag who mentioned the AI had 4,000 APM while testing that build? For a layman, I hope you don't have to have insane APM to get consistently better results with the 13p/15h over the 11p/18h...I hope. Do we have replays of actual human players doing these builds and the differential still being about 150 minerals and more larvae?
Why are people so suspicious of AI? It's not cheating or anything. It's just reliable.
Anyways, I was just watching a replay of the AI and in this particular test it ended the replay with an average APM of 12. Do you think you can manage 12 APM?
Hmm, well it seems worth trying. I have a friend who is also 2k+ diamond and is quite good at 2rax pressure. I'll play vs him with the 14hatch/15pool vs 11pool/18 hatch and see if my ability to defend is affected.
The purpose of these builds is to find the best econ opening that allows you to defend correct? At mid diamond level of play most players will check your pool timings, so the power of a 11pool shouldn't be under estimated.
I'm not sure if this has been discussed in detail but the "most optimal" build is going to be very map dependant. Something like the 11pool is great for steppes, but 14hatch might be better on maps like shakuras. IdrA and Ret's fast spine crawler on i believe 16 before 2nd overlord helps to defend vs 2rax aggression in that scenerio. Were as steppes probably couldn't finish spine before the push comes.
Can you post the replays when you get them? I would really love to get some actual game replays for builds other than the 11 Pool for my thread. I haven't gotten a single one yet.
On December 11 2010 15:13 Enyalus wrote: Was it Skrag who mentioned the AI had 4,000 APM while testing that build? For a layman, I hope you don't have to have insane APM to get consistently better results with the 13p/15h over the 11p/18h...I hope. Do we have replays of actual human players doing these builds and the differential still being about 150 minerals and more larvae?
Why are people so suspicious of AI? It's not cheating or anything. It's just reliable.
Anyways, I was just watching a replay of the AI and in this particular test it ended the replay with an average APM of 12. Do you think you can manage 12 APM?
I can definitely do that. It's just I had read in this thread and previous ones discussing the 11p/18h the need for rallying individual drones to certain mineral patches and splitting them correctly and doing all this (seemingly) complex stuff...and for a player who is just not that good (myself!) - I just want the best economic build that is also safe. Without having to execute tons of mechanical actions that will probably cause me to forget the actual steps of the build I'm executing. And so I wasn't positive this was possible with normal players and not perfect AI. If I'm wrong - awesome. I've got a new favorite build.
On December 11 2010 15:13 Enyalus wrote: Was it Skrag who mentioned the AI had 4,000 APM while testing that build? For a layman, I hope you don't have to have insane APM to get consistently better results with the 13p/15h over the 11p/18h...I hope. Do we have replays of actual human players doing these builds and the differential still being about 150 minerals and more larvae?
Why are people so suspicious of AI? It's not cheating or anything. It's just reliable.
Anyways, I was just watching a replay of the AI and in this particular test it ended the replay with an average APM of 12. Do you think you can manage 12 APM?
I can definitely do that. It's just I had read in this thread and previous ones discussing the 11p/18h the need for rallying individual drones to certain mineral patches and splitting them correctly and doing all this (seemingly) complex stuff...and for a player who is just not that good (myself!) - I just want the best economic build that is also safe. Without having to execute tons of mechanical actions that will probably cause me to forget the actual steps of the build I'm executing. And so I wasn't positive this was possible with normal players and not perfect AI. If I'm wrong - awesome. I've got a new favorite build.
No disrespect or suspicion intended.
It's okay. Admittedly the AI does a really good job playing the builds because it does execute many actions right when the opportunity is available. So even though it has really low APM, it is really precise with its actions. However I do believe it is possible to replicate the results if you really put some effort into it. Also my AI doesn't do any of the fancy drone splitting or sending drones to particular mineral patches in the beginning.
On December 11 2010 16:42 Alternity wrote: Hmm, well it seems worth trying. I have a friend who is also 2k+ diamond and is quite good at 2rax pressure. I'll play vs him with the 14hatch/15pool vs 11pool/18 hatch and see if my ability to defend is affected.
I would like to do this myself but alas I dont know any terrans. This might be obvious, but your "ability to defend" is obviously higher with the earlier pool, what you want to see is if tthat is too high of a price to pay compared to spine and drone micro. If you mind, try the following:
- contain. can terran force you to cancel the later hatch and bunker up outside your main while expanding / teching freely? - assuming you build a bunch of units to hold off the rush, and that terran plays smartly (i.e. doesnt suicide everything but backs out once he sees your army, can you keep up economically in the midgame - not dying to a stim timing push / siege tanks slow push etc?
including the danger that this question has already been asked:
in zvp:
aren't you forced to get your gas at 13-14 or how else do you want to deal with the two stalker+ 1-2 zealot aggresion from a protoss to your expansion. Speedlings seem necesseary to be able to catch the offcreep stalker since they can kite you due to the zealot.
i am talking of the kind of thing freedslwerra did in gsl two if i remember correctly
On December 11 2010 18:42 Nowayouthere wrote: including the danger that this question has already been asked:
in zvp:
aren't you forced to get your gas at 13-14 or how else do you want to deal with the two stalker+ 1-2 zealot aggresion from a protoss to your expansion. Speedlings seem necesseary to be able to catch the offcreep stalker since they can kite you due to the zealot.
i am talking of the kind of thing freedslwerra did in gsl two if i remember correctly
This is just guessing, but wouldn't you kill the zealot first? Also you wouldn't engage the army off of creep if you don't have speed. If they come all the way in to hit your hatch then you should be able to get the zealot. Am I right? Speed is extremely useful. The stalker push is hard, but I really don't think that your claim that you'll die if you don't get gas at 13 or 14 is true.
These are the types of things that need to be played out by diamond players, just like the 2rax is being planned. It would be great if some diamond zerg players got together with other diamond players to specifically test certain situations against different builds.
I played this build the last days and came to following conclusions:
- Works fine in any teamgames - Works fine in ZvZ, ZvP - Works fine in ZvT (no 2rax)
BUT: It doesn't work when you play against a 2rax-terran who knows what he is doing.
Reasons: - Because my hatchery is so late (in comparison to a 14-hatch-build) i can't place a spinecrawler at my expansion before his attack comes (no creep yet), so i need mass zerglings to not lose my expansion. Problems with this: A) If he fake-pressures (moving out with his marines and some scvs but never attacks) i produce a whole lot of zerglings for beeing able to hold this. But instead of attacking he expands. I am now about 10 workers behind plus he has 2 mules. After 5-10 minutes constant pressure he will just steamroll me because i am way behind economally. B) If i produce to less zerglings, or just my secound round of new zerglings would be able to kill his army, he just builds bunkers at the bottom of my ramp (no creep yet) and i autolose.
Do people not go blind baneling nest against terran? I know it can be a gas sink but it ensures you are as safe as can be and can even put pressure on if he is faking. That is if you even suspect he might try this 2 rax crap.
@jacopman the problem is that the two stalker melt your zerglings to nothing if you attack the zealot, and that you cannot engange them offcreep is totally clearly but they are at your natural and will try to snipe the queen/hatch/whatever
Here is a replay of what i mean( though the zerg holds it off barely it shows the importance of having fast speedlings in zvp
On December 11 2010 19:11 TehForce wrote:A) If he fake-pressures (moving out with his marines and some scvs but never attacks) i produce a whole lot of zerglings for beeing able to hold this. But instead of attacking he expands. I am now about 10 workers behind plus he has 2 mules. After 5-10 minutes constant pressure he will just steamroll me because i am way behind economally.
The thing I find so very mind-boggling is how so many people seem to have the thought process
I make a lot of units
My opponent decides to expand, with light unit production facilities
Therefore, I'm going to macro up and lose
and it doesn't seem like this alternative process has even crossed their minds:
I make a lot of units
My opponent decides to expand, with light unit production facilities
On December 11 2010 19:42 Hurkyl wrote: [*] My opponent decides to expand, with light unit production facilities [*] Therefore, I will mass units and go kill him
[/list]
You can try (or are forced to) an all-in to get yourself back but it has a high chance of failing, because both T and P have very cost efficient defenses - bunkers and force fields. You may have a bigger army but they can delay/hold off your push very cheaply until your worse economy will starve you out.
And the main problem is, terran does not have to sacrifice anything with a 2rax opening. They just have to show up with a few marines at your door and you are automatically way behind while they have the option to continue aggression, expand, tech, do whatever they want.
On December 11 2010 19:11 TehForce wrote:A) If he fake-pressures (moving out with his marines and some scvs but never attacks) i produce a whole lot of zerglings for beeing able to hold this. But instead of attacking he expands. I am now about 10 workers behind plus he has 2 mules. After 5-10 minutes constant pressure he will just steamroll me because i am way behind economally.
The thing I find so very mind-boggling is how so many people seem to have the thought process
I make a lot of units
My opponent decides to expand, with light unit production facilities
Therefore, I'm going to macro up and lose
and it doesn't seem like this alternative process has even crossed their minds:
I make a lot of units
My opponent decides to expand, with light unit production facilities
Therefore, I will mass units and go kill him
Well, try this against decent terran, you will see the results. Any competent player will scout if you drone or not, bunker up, and simcity the choke with barracks and bunkers. T1 Zerg is not particulary strong, so even with a good force of roach+lings+blings, there is no way you can enforce this. Moreover, bunkers are impossible to kill if the terran brings scv (given bunker is safe from blings, but anyway, you cannot bust 4 bunkers with blings).
On December 11 2010 19:41 Nowayouthere wrote: @jacopman the problem is that the two stalker melt your zerglings to nothing if you attack the zealot, and that you cannot engange them offcreep is totally clearly but they are at your natural and will try to snipe the queen/hatch/whatever
Here is a replay of what i mean( though the zerg holds it off barely it shows the importance of having fast speedlings in zvp
I'm going to be honest and say that I don't know if I believe two stalkers will "melt" your lings. I've never really found stalkers to be that spectacular against lings. The only reason they are any good in the beginning is their speed, not their ability to "melt" lings. You should still be able to snipe the zealot if they get too close, at which point you're in a much better position.
I don't know, all of this is really speculation at the moment, which is what the original poster want to avoid. There's little point to bashing two opposing hypothesis together if you're not going to test it to come to a conclusion.
Hi TL-Com I tried it but I lost against a baneling bust. Didn't know what to do against these sweet bombs. Spinecrawler didn't help, my roaches didn't either.
On December 11 2010 19:42 Hurkyl wrote: [*] My opponent decides to expand, with light unit production facilities [*] Therefore, I will mass units and go kill him
You can try (or are forced to) an all-in to get yourself back but it has a high chance of failing, because both T and P have very cost efficient defenses - bunkers and force fields. You may have a bigger army but they can delay/hold off your push very cheaply until your worse economy will starve you out.
[/list] If your Terran opponent voluntarily stays in his base, you no longer need to attack to counter the expansion. If they manage to build a lot of static defense at their natural despite your army, that's still a good result -- none of that money can be used to pressure you and keep you from Droning up and/or taking a third.
And the main problem is, terran does not have to sacrifice anything with a 2rax opening.
He sacrifices the ability to push out with 15 marines at 5:00. He sacrifices the ability to have a cloaked banshee before 8:00. He sacrifices the ability to have a Siege Tank covering a fast expansion. He locks himself into pure Marines without any upgrades or Marauder support or for a couple minutes. And, of course, every SCV he builds is another Marine he cannot have for some time.
2 rax is not a "best of all worlds" build. It allows many things to be done adequately, but none exceptionally. Having many adequate allows it to do well against builds who lock themselves into only one option.
So, naturally, I'm skeptical of the conclusions of arguments that involve locking one's self into only one option.
On December 11 2010 19:11 TehForce wrote: I played this build the last days and came to following conclusions:
- Works fine in any teamgames - Works fine in ZvZ, ZvP - Works fine in ZvT (no 2rax)
BUT: It doesn't work when you play against a 2rax-terran who knows what he is doing.
Reasons: - Because my hatchery is so late (in comparison to a 14-hatch-build) i can't place a spinecrawler at my expansion before his attack comes (no creep yet), so i need mass zerglings to not lose my expansion. Problems with this: A) If he fake-pressures (moving out with his marines and some scvs but never attacks) i produce a whole lot of zerglings for beeing able to hold this. But instead of attacking he expands. I am now about 10 workers behind plus he has 2 mules. After 5-10 minutes constant pressure he will just steamroll me because i am way behind economally. B) If i produce to less zerglings, or just my secound round of new zerglings would be able to kill his army, he just builds bunkers at the bottom of my ramp (no creep yet) and i autolose.
I wonder if he actually experienced this or if he is repeating the analysis that's been repeated before lol...
I have had trouble understanding this argument since it began. In every 2rax push I have ever seen, zerg never gets the opportunity to finish a spine in time to defend. I've been asking for replays or VODS of this, but I haven't found them. Without having a spine crawler as defense, then a hatch first build will need exactly the same number of lings as a pool first in order to defend. The notion that for some reason you pump lings until you are 10 drones behind is an assumption I cannot make without actually seeing it in action. The notion that a bunkered ramp is more difficult to hold off with an earlier pool doesn't make much sense to me either. I know ret and Idra are being used as the basis for all of these claims, but they sound like really broken theorycraft arguments. If anyone has seen a single game where this theory was actually encountered, I would love to see it.
In general, the notion that Terran can produce workers and units simultaneously and the Zerg is forced to produce 100% units in reaction would indicate the game is impossibly broken. I don't think this is the case though.
On December 11 2010 19:11 TehForce wrote: I played this build the last days and came to following conclusions:
- Works fine in any teamgames - Works fine in ZvZ, ZvP - Works fine in ZvT (no 2rax)
BUT: It doesn't work when you play against a 2rax-terran who knows what he is doing.
Reasons: - Because my hatchery is so late (in comparison to a 14-hatch-build) i can't place a spinecrawler at my expansion before his attack comes (no creep yet), so i need mass zerglings to not lose my expansion. Problems with this: A) If he fake-pressures (moving out with his marines and some scvs but never attacks) i produce a whole lot of zerglings for beeing able to hold this. But instead of attacking he expands. I am now about 10 workers behind plus he has 2 mules. After 5-10 minutes constant pressure he will just steamroll me because i am way behind economally. B) If i produce to less zerglings, or just my secound round of new zerglings would be able to kill his army, he just builds bunkers at the bottom of my ramp (no creep yet) and i autolose.
I wonder if he actually experienced this or if he is repeating the analysis that's been repeated before lol...
I have had trouble understanding this argument since it began. In every 2rax push I have ever seen, zerg never gets the opportunity to finish a spine in time to defend. I've been asking for replays or VODS of this, but I haven't found them. Without having a spine crawler as defense, then a hatch first build will need exactly the same number of lings as a pool first in order to defend. The notion that for some reason you pump lings until you are 10 drones behind is an assumption I cannot make without actually seeing it in action. The notion that a bunkered ramp is more difficult to hold off with an earlier pool doesn't make much sense to me either. I know ret and Idra are being used as the basis for all of these claims, but they sound like really broken theorycraft arguments. If anyone has seen a single game where this theory was actually encountered, I would love to see it.
In general, the notion that Terran can produce workers and units simultaneously and the Zerg is forced to produce 100% units in reaction would indicate the game is impossibly broken. I don't think this is the case though.
I'm not quite sure what your argument is, but I can understand the sentiment that you do not understand where other people are getting their views from.
On December 12 2010 00:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:Without having a spine crawler as defense, then a hatch first build will need exactly the same number of lings as a pool first in order to defend.
There are two more relevant aspects that make some difference (but I have no idea how much):
Creep improves the effectiveness of Zerglings
If you have a Spine Crawler building, you have the extra option of stalling, rather than being forced to actually defeat the enemy with your Zerglings
(Well, technically, you have the stalling option with Pool first -- but you have to stall for a longer amount of time)
Okay so I think the haters need to chill. And IMO, this is actually rather smart thinking. Instead of forcing a hatch first for an economical advantage (and blaming terran all-ins/bunker contains to be OP as I have been doing >.>), this is a guy that's said 'Hey, if I get an early pool, I can get extra larvae from a fast queen instead of the extra hatch. Also, by expanding later and getting my pool earlier, I can force the opponent into making extra, unnecessary units, delaying his tech.' So while I wouldn't use this build on EVERY map (unless there's a huge metagame shift), I will definitely be trying this on steppes of war, where the terran ramp wall-in and scv-marine all in are zerg's worst nightmare.
On December 11 2010 19:11 TehForce wrote: I played this build the last days and came to following conclusions:
- Works fine in any teamgames - Works fine in ZvZ, ZvP - Works fine in ZvT (no 2rax)
BUT: It doesn't work when you play against a 2rax-terran who knows what he is doing.
Reasons: - Because my hatchery is so late (in comparison to a 14-hatch-build) i can't place a spinecrawler at my expansion before his attack comes (no creep yet), so i need mass zerglings to not lose my expansion. Problems with this: A) If he fake-pressures (moving out with his marines and some scvs but never attacks) i produce a whole lot of zerglings for beeing able to hold this. But instead of attacking he expands. I am now about 10 workers behind plus he has 2 mules. After 5-10 minutes constant pressure he will just steamroll me because i am way behind economally. B) If i produce to less zerglings, or just my secound round of new zerglings would be able to kill his army, he just builds bunkers at the bottom of my ramp (no creep yet) and i autolose.
I wonder if he actually experienced this or if he is repeating the analysis that's been repeated before lol...
I have had trouble understanding this argument since it began. In every 2rax push I have ever seen, zerg never gets the opportunity to finish a spine in time to defend. I've been asking for replays or VODS of this, but I haven't found them. Without having a spine crawler as defense, then a hatch first build will need exactly the same number of lings as a pool first in order to defend. The notion that for some reason you pump lings until you are 10 drones behind is an assumption I cannot make without actually seeing it in action. The notion that a bunkered ramp is more difficult to hold off with an earlier pool doesn't make much sense to me either. I know ret and Idra are being used as the basis for all of these claims, but they sound like really broken theorycraft arguments. If anyone has seen a single game where this theory was actually encountered, I would love to see it.
In general, the notion that Terran can produce workers and units simultaneously and the Zerg is forced to produce 100% units in reaction would indicate the game is impossibly broken. I don't think this is the case though.
maybe people are saying the same thing because it is true.
i have experienced this personally. if u 11 pool and the terran is in any way competent you will be behind.
i played a game on metal a few days ago and it went exactly as described. i 11 pool. he makes a handful of marines, marches to my base, scans and sees i made lings, pulls back and expands. from that point forward i am behind. this one game was enough for me to realize that 11 pool against 2 rax is bad.
you can have a spine 50-100% completed if u 14 hatch. try it yourself.
edit: heres a replay of 14 hatch and the spine. he doesnt attack the spine while it is building, and his rush is countered as a result. http://replayfu.com/download/gTHDdq
On December 11 2010 13:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: Once the opportunity for flaming disappears, Skrag leaves as quickly as he came...
Yeah, cause life and sleep couldn't possibly have had anything to do with my absence.
No apology for turning my thread into a childish mudslinging battle for hours... He attacks me and calls me a jackass twice, a moron twice, a blind-single-minded fanatic, and so on, and he won't even bother to end with a civil comment after I give him what he wants.
Your comments directed towards me, jacobman, and pretty much everybody in this thread, through your choice of words like "garbage" and "waste of time" have been extremely inflammatory, and if you don't recognize that, then I maintain you are, in fact, a moron.
As long as you continue to insist that you haven't flamed or attacked anybody anywhere in this thread, despite the number of comments asking you to chill out, my comments will stand, with no apology intended.
OP I don't know how good your build actually is but from my experience, no one is going to try your build unless a pro player successfully uses this in a pro level game. In this case, a pro player has actually indirectly spoken against a build like this in another thread so there is a lot of resistance against this build. I suggest you PM a pro zerg (Ret , IdrA etc) to post what they think of this build after trying it out.
On December 11 2010 15:13 Enyalus wrote: Was it Skrag who mentioned the AI had 4,000 APM while testing that build? For a layman, I hope you don't have to have insane APM to get consistently better results with the 13p/15h over the 11p/18h...I hope. Do we have replays of actual human players doing these builds and the differential still being about 150 minerals and more larvae?
Why are people so suspicious of AI? It's not cheating or anything. It's just reliable.
Anyways, I was just watching a replay of the AI and in this particular test it ended the replay with an average APM of 12. Do you think you can manage 12 APM?
I can definitely do that. It's just I had read in this thread and previous ones discussing the 11p/18h the need for rallying individual drones to certain mineral patches and splitting them correctly and doing all this (seemingly) complex stuff...and for a player who is just not that good (myself!) - I just want the best economic build that is also safe. Without having to execute tons of mechanical actions that will probably cause me to forget the actual steps of the build I'm executing. And so I wasn't positive this was possible with normal players and not perfect AI. If I'm wrong - awesome. I've got a new favorite build.
No disrespect or suspicion intended.
It's okay. Admittedly the AI does a really good job playing the builds because it does execute many actions right when the opportunity is available. So even though it has really low APM, it is really precise with its actions. However I do believe it is possible to replicate the results if you really put some effort into it. Also my AI doesn't do any of the fancy drone splitting or sending drones to particular mineral patches in the beginning.
This. The APM had to be turned up so high to prevent the AI from having delays that a normal player wouldn't have, and to try to avoid inconsistencies in the results, which as I've mentioned, can be caused by what might seem like very small differences.
Now that the AI has shown that it is possible for 13pool to be superior economically to 11pool, I'm pretty confident that with enough practice, a human could execute the build in such a way that it would surpass jd's original 11pool replay post, and that his execution of the 11pool was simply a lot better than his execution of the 13pool.
All I'm trying to demonstrate here is that the OP's claims that 11pool is *the most* economical pool-first build are false, or at least questionable, so that we can start talking about whether the sacrifice is worthwhile. Personally I believe it definitely can be, and that there are a lot of advantages to 11pool vs 13 or 14pooling, and realistically, the sacrifice isn't that much. You do have to be able to recognize that there is actually a sacrifice going on though, no matter how small it is.
It is possible with the 11pool build to fit in a spine crawler at the main, that is ready in time to root at the expansion as soon as the hatchery completes. The positioning won't be ideal, because you probably don't have time to wait for the hatchery creep to extend as far as it can, but it would certainly be worth testing.
On December 11 2010 19:11 TehForce wrote: I played this build the last days and came to following conclusions:
- Works fine in any teamgames - Works fine in ZvZ, ZvP - Works fine in ZvT (no 2rax)
BUT: It doesn't work when you play against a 2rax-terran who knows what he is doing.
Reasons: - Because my hatchery is so late (in comparison to a 14-hatch-build) i can't place a spinecrawler at my expansion before his attack comes (no creep yet), so i need mass zerglings to not lose my expansion. Problems with this: A) If he fake-pressures (moving out with his marines and some scvs but never attacks) i produce a whole lot of zerglings for beeing able to hold this. But instead of attacking he expands. I am now about 10 workers behind plus he has 2 mules. After 5-10 minutes constant pressure he will just steamroll me because i am way behind economally. B) If i produce to less zerglings, or just my secound round of new zerglings would be able to kill his army, he just builds bunkers at the bottom of my ramp (no creep yet) and i autolose.
I wonder if he actually experienced this or if he is repeating the analysis that's been repeated before lol...
I have had trouble understanding this argument since it began. In every 2rax push I have ever seen, zerg never gets the opportunity to finish a spine in time to defend. I've been asking for replays or VODS of this, but I haven't found them. Without having a spine crawler as defense, then a hatch first build will need exactly the same number of lings as a pool first in order to defend. The notion that for some reason you pump lings until you are 10 drones behind is an assumption I cannot make without actually seeing it in action. The notion that a bunkered ramp is more difficult to hold off with an earlier pool doesn't make much sense to me either. I know ret and Idra are being used as the basis for all of these claims, but they sound like really broken theorycraft arguments. If anyone has seen a single game where this theory was actually encountered, I would love to see it.
In general, the notion that Terran can produce workers and units simultaneously and the Zerg is forced to produce 100% units in reaction would indicate the game is impossibly broken. I don't think this is the case though.
i actually have experienced this -.-
just because you don't like my conclusion you don't have to imply that i am lying.
i practiced 11 pool, 18 hatch and 14 hatch with a friend of mine and in my opinion 11 pool just sets you behind if the terran goes for 2rax. The reasons i stated above.
I could even send you replays but why should i put more effort in this than you. You obviously didnt tested the build, instead you say "well I THINK THAT!!! SO IT IS!!!"
On December 12 2010 05:28 TehForce wrote: i actually have experienced this -.-
just because you don't like my conclusion you don't have to imply that i am lying.
i practiced 11 pool, 18 hatch and 14 hatch with a friend of mine and in my opinion 11 pool just sets you behind if the terran goes for 2rax. The reasons i stated above.
I could even send you replays but why should i put more effort in this than you. You obviously didnt tested the build, instead you say "well I THINK THAT!!! SO IT IS!!!"
There are plenty of people in this thread (myself included) who would very much appreciate you posting replays of 11pool having trouble against 2rax, to either figure out ways to improve, or at the very least recognize that it is a very real problem that my prevent the build from being used against terrans.
So if you have any replays of this, or wouldn't mind generating some, it would be greatly appreciated.
Anybody have links to replays of the 2rax pressure build, or know at what time the first attack happens and how many units it includes? Some of the questions could be answered if I just knew what time the first attack happened and how strong it was.
For example, if the attack definitely comes before the hatchery is even finished, then that would definitely be an issue. But if the attack simply comes before a spine crawler could be finished, that might possibly be mitigated by starting the crawler at the main and then moving it down to the expansion.
On December 12 2010 05:41 Skrag wrote: Anybody have links to replays of the 2rax pressure build, or know at what time the first attack happens and how many units it includes? Some of the questions could be answered if I just knew what time the first attack happened and how strong it was.
For example, if the attack definitely comes before the hatchery is even finished, then that would definitely be an issue. But if the attack simply comes before a spine crawler could be finished, that might possibly be mitigated by starting the crawler at the main and then moving it down to the expansion.
I don't think the first attack is the issue. From what I've gathered it's the constant pressure after that first attack. So it's really about the production more than the speed you get the lings out.
On December 12 2010 05:41 Skrag wrote: Anybody have links to replays of the 2rax pressure build, or know at what time the first attack happens and how many units it includes? Some of the questions could be answered if I just knew what time the first attack happened and how strong it was.
For example, if the attack definitely comes before the hatchery is even finished, then that would definitely be an issue. But if the attack simply comes before a spine crawler could be finished, that might possibly be mitigated by starting the crawler at the main and then moving it down to the expansion.
You can watch GSL games, TSL Rain vs NesTea and mvp vs idra had plenty of 2rax action.
I just played a game on metalopolis close positions and 4 marines attacked my spine crawler that was about halfway done. I started it asap with a 14h/15p BO, I don't know of any other way to get it down faster. Needless to say he got a bunker down and managed to kill my half-dead re-rooting spine crawler. It's a fucking nasty BO to hold off and it makes me want to drone rush ZvT on close positions.
On December 12 2010 06:12 Dragar wrote: First marine leaves at 3.30, and 4 marines built in total at 4.05 with a bunker underway. Ouch.
The nice thing is that he expands as he screws me over with units that are worth 300 minerals + salvageable bunkers, while also getting Mules for more marine SCV goodness
On December 12 2010 05:41 Skrag wrote: Anybody have links to replays of the 2rax pressure build, or know at what time the first attack happens and how many units it includes? Some of the questions could be answered if I just knew what time the first attack happened and how strong it was.
For example, if the attack definitely comes before the hatchery is even finished, then that would definitely be an issue. But if the attack simply comes before a spine crawler could be finished, that might possibly be mitigated by starting the crawler at the main and then moving it down to the expansion.
the attack does come before an 18 hatch is finished. a spine in your main does nothing because it can be avoided.
also moving spines during the attack is a quick way to lose. you hvae to fight by the spine. if they attack it u move in with lings, if they focus lings let the spine do some work. its the only way to cost effectively beat a 2rax rush.
On December 12 2010 05:41 Skrag wrote: Anybody have links to replays of the 2rax pressure build, or know at what time the first attack happens and how many units it includes? Some of the questions could be answered if I just knew what time the first attack happened and how strong it was.
For example, if the attack definitely comes before the hatchery is even finished, then that would definitely be an issue. But if the attack simply comes before a spine crawler could be finished, that might possibly be mitigated by starting the crawler at the main and then moving it down to the expansion.
the attack does come before an 18 hatch is finished. a spine in your main does nothing because it can be avoided.
also moving spines during the attack is a quick way to lose. you hvae to fight by the spine. if they attack it u move in with lings, if they focus lings let the spine do some work. its the only way to cost effectively beat a 2rax rush.
If the attack comes at 4:30, the hatchery should be *very* close to finished, with the spine crawler in place and ready to plant as soon as it does.
That might be cutting the timing way too close though, and the marines could simply go to your main and avoid the crawler entirely.
On December 12 2010 05:41 Skrag wrote: Anybody have links to replays of the 2rax pressure build, or know at what time the first attack happens and how many units it includes? Some of the questions could be answered if I just knew what time the first attack happened and how strong it was.
For example, if the attack definitely comes before the hatchery is even finished, then that would definitely be an issue. But if the attack simply comes before a spine crawler could be finished, that might possibly be mitigated by starting the crawler at the main and then moving it down to the expansion.
the attack does come before an 18 hatch is finished. a spine in your main does nothing because it can be avoided.
also moving spines during the attack is a quick way to lose. you hvae to fight by the spine. if they attack it u move in with lings, if they focus lings let the spine do some work. its the only way to cost effectively beat a 2rax rush.
If the attack comes at 4:30, the hatchery should be *very* close to finished, with the spine crawler in place and ready to plant as soon as it does.
That might be cutting the timing way too close though, and the marines could simply go to your main and avoid the crawler entirely.
It's just impossible to hold with pool first.
The first 2 marines come at 4.05 the 18 hatch is 35 seconds away from being done (assuming it wasn't blocked which any good T will do vs such a late hatch).
He the pushes the couple of lings back into the main (because they are half-dead if they even try to attack a single marine) while spamming bunkers around your ramp + hatch. Now you can send your drones to take out the SCVs making the bunkers. He then proceeds to set his remaining SCVs on auto repair while microing his marines so they dont die. In the meantime more marines arrive / bunkers finish etc. If you somehow magically get a spine up he can still find an odd angle / walk into your main etc.
So even if you do some sort of in-base 14h15p, he'll easily contain you into an advantage just as big.. Then taking your natural will be almost impossible; you would need some sort of hidden drone to take a random hidden expo... Does not sound solid at all.
Earlier lings to harass the reinforcements might have been a lot more effective than attacking the bunker rush head-on -- you didn't scout the first bunker till after it was down and then things just went so far south.
The second hatchery doesn't pay off until later in the game... a creep tumor so you could position spines at your main and then expand later would've probably been a lot more effective assuming he didn't bunker up your ramp. That said, getting a bunker on a zerg ramp would be ridiculously hard with creep spread if lings were outside of the base to begin with. I think people are approaching the whole "but if I do x, he'll do y!" thing too head-on.
For instance, in the replay, the player loses a ton of drones to marines that are needed to maintain production. Using a queen to stall vs 1 or 2 marines would've been his only option -- as soon as he advanced back to the second bunker he got crushed by bunkered marines.
I really think the best way to counter that 2rax rush (the way it hit ChickenLips) is to have a forward overlord and 4 lings out to scout the bunker placement and stop the first bunker. As long as it's outside of attacking distance for your nat, you should be okay.
Feel free to take this with a grain of salt, as I'm Gold, but I would've countered that rush (the way the marines reinforced and took that position with the bunker) that way if I had seen the early bunker placement.
----
Also, where people are complaining here about how you're "behind" if you have to make units.. if you can deal damage with those units or pressure the opponent into making missteps, it doesn't matter if you're at a bit of an economic disadvantage. For instance, you could respond to that pressure (once you've stalled it) with Roaches and if you rout the attack deal some damage to supply depots or make the opponent's expansion incredibly risky. Even a few units to snipe can be highly effective if microed properly.
--
And, finally, what if you let yourself take an economic hit and use your very early queen to spread creep? Two tumors on meta and you've got your natural creeped up before a bunker rush could hit it.
On December 12 2010 05:41 Skrag wrote: Anybody have links to replays of the 2rax pressure build, or know at what time the first attack happens and how many units it includes? Some of the questions could be answered if I just knew what time the first attack happened and how strong it was.
For example, if the attack definitely comes before the hatchery is even finished, then that would definitely be an issue. But if the attack simply comes before a spine crawler could be finished, that might possibly be mitigated by starting the crawler at the main and then moving it down to the expansion.
You can watch GSL games, TSL Rain vs NesTea and mvp vs idra had plenty of 2rax action.
I just played a game on metalopolis close positions and 4 marines attacked my spine crawler that was about halfway done. I started it asap with a 14h/15p BO, I don't know of any other way to get it down faster. Needless to say he got a bunker down and managed to kill my half-dead re-rooting spine crawler. It's a fucking nasty BO to hold off and it makes me want to drone rush ZvT on close positions.
4 marines came in at 4:30.
here's the rep
Your description is misleading. He didn't have a bunker near your base -- it wasn't even near enough to cover his attempt to build one near your base! You got a Spine Crawler at your natural without any real problem, but then decided to uproot it so you could charge 6 Marines with 3 Zerglings and an uprooted Spine Crawler (while having plenty of unspent minerals and larvae).
On December 02 2010 08:58 zink0 wrote: pardon my extremely noob question, but why two consecutive overlords at 17 and 18? also what is a maynard 7 drones?
thanks for the build, will try it tonight
I think you can squeeze one drone in between those overlords, but you end up building a lot of stuff in a very short period of time right around that area (queen + stuff from a queen larva spawn), so you do actually need the overlords pretty close.
I've been intuitively getting two ovies at 16. I think it was triggered by a game I watched by Fruitdealer. There was a lack of larvae while I was waiting for my spawning pool to pop, and new I wanted to have as much supply as possible when my queen popped so i can make mass lings if I scouted some kind of all-in-ish-ness.
On December 12 2010 05:41 Skrag wrote: Anybody have links to replays of the 2rax pressure build, or know at what time the first attack happens and how many units it includes? Some of the questions could be answered if I just knew what time the first attack happened and how strong it was.
For example, if the attack definitely comes before the hatchery is even finished, then that would definitely be an issue. But if the attack simply comes before a spine crawler could be finished, that might possibly be mitigated by starting the crawler at the main and then moving it down to the expansion.
You can watch GSL games, TSL Rain vs NesTea and mvp vs idra had plenty of 2rax action.
I just played a game on metalopolis close positions and 4 marines attacked my spine crawler that was about halfway done. I started it asap with a 14h/15p BO, I don't know of any other way to get it down faster. Needless to say he got a bunker down and managed to kill my half-dead re-rooting spine crawler. It's a fucking nasty BO to hold off and it makes me want to drone rush ZvT on close positions.
4 marines came in at 4:30.
here's the rep
Your description is misleading. He didn't have a bunker near your base -- it wasn't even near enough to cover his attempt to build one near your base! You got a Spine Crawler at your natural without any real problem, but then decided to uproot it so you could charge 6 Marines with 3 Zerglings and an uprooted Spine Crawler (while having plenty of unspent minerals and larvae).
I didn't scout the bunker and when i saw it i immediately gave up any hope on winning that game. Terran in such close positions + a finished bunker puts you behind indefinitely. Terran just kills a lot shit, forces an incredibly high number of zerglings and then hits a 2base timing at 8 to 9 minutes with stim and combat shields done. I should've stalled put my drones back on mining etc. but I really couldn't be arsed at that point. It's more of a replay on what not to do vs 2rax. I just posted it so skrag could figure out the timings.
Yeah, the timing seems pretty rough, like you won't have the crawler in time because the hatch won't be finished fast enough.
13p/15h finishes the hatch soon enough that it might be more viable though, although I don't know if it's actually possible to get a crawler in the main fast enough with that build. I was able to with 11pool, but haven't tried with 13.
This does seem pretty nasty. On the other hand, this 2rax pressure seems *very* scoutable, unless they hide a rax, and I think there are some things that could be done differently no matter what start you choose to combat it. For example, as much as I absolutely *hate* to even suggest it, because I think it's absolutely horrible most of the time, if you started 11pool and scouted 2 rax, that might be a case where a second in-base hatch could be worthwhile, allowing you to produce both drones and lings, as well as defend a lot easier from the top of the ramp.
What I'm not sure of is if the second rax has to go down before you decide where to place the hatch, and if you can scout it in time.
One thing to note with hatch first builds you build the crawler at the expansion, where as with a pool first you build the crawler at the main and transfer it to the natural. When a spine crawler is building it doesn't have its armor so marine shots do 6 damage to a building crawler, where as a built crawler has 2 armor so a marine shots do 4 damage to a burrowing crawler. This seems pretty big and as I said a few pages back you can get a crawler down faster at your natural with the 13p15 hatch build (4:22) than either the 11p18h (4:44) or the 14h build (4:27) and you get the armor benefit. 11overpool seems misplaced in zvt but seems much stronger in the zvp and zvz.
Note these timings are based on simple math, there might be some slight discrepancies in practice.
I'd like to know which is the most economic opener when you have to wait for a spine crawler to kill a pylon block before expanding, it should be the earlier pool right as all your early larva will come from one hatch and a queen inject? The theory craft in me suggests that if you 11 overpool and get pylon blocked at your ramp you should just drone up and spine crawler the top of your ramp to kill the cannon and then expand. When I've been cannon rushing 11 overpoolers like this where they aren't saving larva they've been making lings and trying to break out with lings and drones and the cannons are always up in time. I think if they were calmer and took it in stride knowing they are free to drone as no early gateway pressure is coming they could break out with the spine and expand ending up in a good position. Would love to test this.
I was able to with 11pool, but haven't tried with 13.
13 gives you a fairly lovely timing to get the spine down while banking money at 18/18 supply, letting you squeeze another drone out. It finishes nearly bang on time to walk down and burrow as the hatch pops.
I haven't checked the timing for when marines arrive though.
Do burrowing (as opposed to building) crawlers not benefit from armour? Interesting.
On December 12 2010 11:33 Dragar wrote: Do burrowing (as opposed to building) crawlers not benefit from armour? Interesting.
To be clear burrowing crawlers DO get 2 armor, building crawlers DO NOT get 2 armor.
Hmm. Somebody was talking about 11pool 15hatch or 16hatch or something. I wonder how much of a sacrifice you have to make to get the hatch out faster, and if you can scout 2rax soon enough to actually do it as a response. If the sacrifice is too big, or the timings don't work, 13pool is probably actually safer against terran than 11pool.
There's little point going 11 pool versus Terran at all Skrag, as you note. Hatch first is safer and more economical.
Against protoss it's really nice on small maps, being invulnerable to pylon blocks at the natural and able to take down a forge FE. Timings are iffy for avoiding a double pylon and cannon contain at the ramp, but I think there may be time if spot the first pylon going up down there, and spam lings.
On December 12 2010 12:14 Dragar wrote: There's little point going 11 pool versus Terran at all Skrag, as you note. Hatch first is safer and more economical.
Against protoss it's really nice on small maps, being invulnerable to pylon blocks at the natural and able to take down a forge FE. Timings are iffy for avoiding a double pylon and cannon contain at the ramp, but I think there may be time if spot the first pylon going up down there, and spam lings.
Is it *really* safer if the crawler can't get up in time though? An earlier pool would let you get a crawler in place faster by building it at the main and moving it to the expansion.
Well, I personally have had no trouble beating 2rax with the 11Pool. Honestly, it feels like an auto-win. I can get plenty of lings out early, and instead of regretting that they aren't drones, I enjoy the fact that I can take complete control of the map and usually deny the Terran an expansion after fending off the attack. If the Terran insists on expanding and trying to get a macro advantage, I've had no trouble using my speedlings, banelings, and production capacity to bust the expansion.
I really wish the people who are having trouble with 2rax would post the reps... it would help the conversation immensely and change it from theory and hearsay to actual data we can analyze.
On December 12 2010 12:35 vdek wrote: I did something similar to this build in this game, worked pretty well.
At first I was disappointed to see this wasn't a 2rax rep... But the game was so epic I stopped caring lol...
Nice win. I can't wait for them to change that repair mechanic.
Thanks, I was actually scared for a moment there before I decided to go all in with my drones. That was a Hail Mary there. Repair was pretty OP though, I was doing my best to try to focus fire down the SCVs.
On December 12 2010 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote: Well, I personally have had no trouble beating 2rax with the 11Pool. Honestly, it feels like an auto-win. I can get plenty of lings out early, and instead of regretting that they aren't drones, I enjoy the fact that I can take complete control of the map and usually deny the Terran an expansion after fending off the attack. If the Terran insists on expanding and trying to get a macro advantage, I've had no trouble using my speedlings, banelings, and production capacity to bust the expansion.
I really wish the people who are having trouble with 2rax would post the reps... it would help the conversation immensely and change it from theory and hearsay to actual data we can analyze.
That rep isn't representative of anything. The terran could've won that game at any point in the 3:00 to 5:00 range by just building bunkers or microing his marines. He sadly decided to do neither and you still entered the mid-game at a severe disadvantage (same worker count, same base count, no tech to show for it) and managed to edge out an advantage because of his abysmal mid-game and inability to fend off a simple eco baneling bust.
If he at any point puts down 3 bunkers in your natural there is NOTHING you can do as the marines shred your workers while they do their buggy pathfinding around the bunkers.
The build has one big weakness. Thats Before you get your expansion, after you get the queen. Having no supply left will leave you very weak to any form of attack or harassment. Even to Expansion Blocking. So it should be at least 15 Zergling 16 Queen 18 Expand.
Someone who knows the timing of this build can beat you with a 7 or 8 Pool.
On December 12 2010 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote: Well, I personally have had no trouble beating 2rax with the 11Pool. Honestly, it feels like an auto-win. I can get plenty of lings out early, and instead of regretting that they aren't drones, I enjoy the fact that I can take complete control of the map and usually deny the Terran an expansion after fending off the attack. If the Terran insists on expanding and trying to get a macro advantage, I've had no trouble using my speedlings, banelings, and production capacity to bust the expansion.
I really wish the people who are having trouble with 2rax would post the reps... it would help the conversation immensely and change it from theory and hearsay to actual data we can analyze.
That rep isn't representative of anything. The terran could've won that game at any point in the 3:00 to 5:00 range by just building bunkers or microing his marines. He sadly decided to do neither and you still entered the mid-game at a severe disadvantage (same worker count, same base count, no tech to show for it) and managed to edge out an advantage because of his abysmal mid-game and inability to fend off a simple eco baneling bust.
If he at any point puts down 3 bunkers in your natural there is NOTHING you can do as the marines shred your workers while they do their buggy pathfinding around the bunkers.
I never said the rep was representative of anything. I said I've had no trouble at all consistently beating 2rax with 11Pool in the diamond league. The theorycrafting is simply that until we get a single game as evidence. We can exchange baseless claims all day long.
I personally find it hilarious that a couple pros say "if you do X, then Y will happen" and immediately afterwords my thread is filled with people saying "I tried to do X, but Y happened," but they for some reason refuse to post a single game showing how Y happened.
I don't mean to be a jackass or anything, I am just a naturally skeptical person and I tend to reject claims without evidence that contradict what I've seen with my own eyes. I'm not sure why people would not want to bolster their argument with actual evidence, so I tend to conclude they likely don't have the evidence and are simply parroting what they heard from a pro.
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.
Ok, I used this in a few games, and I now swear by this build. With it I was able to successfully hold of a zealot rush into viod rays, a 6 pool, and against someone who was 14 pooling or 15 hatching I got them to completely turtle up, build an extra hachery and 3 spine crawlers in their main, and literally poop their pants thinking I was going to ten pool them while I comfortably took my natural at 18. It was beautiful and sad to see the thought process of my zerg opponent unfold so predictably before my eyes, turtling, realizing the attack wasn't coming, attacking and being driven off, franticly trying to transition to mutas and being beat to the punch, leaving them with literally no options and quiting. Thank you so much for this contribution. I only hope other zerg players will keep using the `14 pool 15 hatch build for a little longer so I can wield this weighty advantage .
On December 12 2010 11:20 Jaeger wrote: One thing to note with hatch first builds you build the crawler at the expansion, where as with a pool first you build the crawler at the main and transfer it to the natural. When a spine crawler is building it doesn't have its armor so marine shots do 6 damage to a building crawler, where as a built crawler has 2 armor so a marine shots do 4 damage to a burrowing crawler. This seems pretty big and as I said a few pages back you can get a crawler down faster at your natural with the 13p15 hatch build (4:22) than either the 11p18h (4:44) or the 14h build (4:27) and you get the armor benefit. 11overpool seems misplaced in zvt but seems much stronger in the zvp and zvz.
Note these timings are based on simple math, there might be some slight discrepancies in practice.
I'd like to know which is the most economic opener when you have to wait for a spine crawler to kill a pylon block before expanding, it should be the earlier pool right as all your early larva will come from one hatch and a queen inject? The theory craft in me suggests that if you 11 overpool and get pylon blocked at your ramp you should just drone up and spine crawler the top of your ramp to kill the cannon and then expand. When I've been cannon rushing 11 overpoolers like this where they aren't saving larva they've been making lings and trying to break out with lings and drones and the cannons are always up in time. I think if they were calmer and took it in stride knowing they are free to drone as no early gateway pressure is coming they could break out with the spine and expand ending up in a good position. Would love to test this.
In theory if you halted the cannon at the front and the protoss abondoned it, couldnt you simply overload carry a drone and expand at a natural anyway? If not at a natural then the next closes expansion?
On December 12 2010 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote: I really wish the people who are having trouble with 2rax would post the reps... it would help the conversation immensely and change it from theory and hearsay to actual data we can analyze.
I agree with this. There are a lot of people saying "you'll get crushed by a 2rax build" but nobody posting reps of the build having trouble against 2rax. Post the reps, so we can figure out if there's a solution to the perceived problem.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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:
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 +
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:
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 +
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.
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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
I been following this thread. While the OP's arguments and info is valid, he does seem to respond negatively to any comments that criticize the build even when valid information is presented.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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~
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.
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.
Great find op, but until i see the pros out there constantly using it and acknowledging it, im probably sticking to my old school 14 pool/16 hatch and what goes for the matchup currently
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.
Thank you JD for this interesting build and your analysis. After reading this whole damn thread i think there are a few solid conclusions about this build's effectiveness vs the 14 hatch 15 pool. In either case these two builds are pretty much all i do now outside of zvz.
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.
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.
I love the versatility of this build; however, when I want it to be slightly more economic I'll pool on 12. Having a ton of success with the build so far, major props to the OP.
* amateurs are not pros, so if you do not have the micro to defend a rush using drones only, you are way better off with an earlier pool build. The worse you are mechanically, the safer and more flexible builds you need, because you are scouting worse than a pro and you might not recognize your opponents build from peeking at the opponents mineral patch once .. Also the lower ladders are full of people executing strange cheese each game ..
* jdseemoreglasses showed that in contradiction to popular belief, an early pool/sacrificing some early larva does not have a large impact on eco in SC2 (early queen makes up for it somewhat) compared to SCBW.
* it seems like poeple overrate eco. An advantage of 100 to 200 minerals at say 6 minutes into the game is nothing. 99% of people will have this variance executing the same build twice, as they are not capable to execute the build that accurate in real games (including me ;-) ).
however i stick with early hatch first (12 hatch) except on small maps or 2v2 games ..
On December 13 2010 21:01 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: I don't know why you guys start flaming the OP ..
* amateurs are not pros, so if you do not have the micro to defend a rush using drones only, you are way better off with an earlier pool build. The worse you are mechanically, the safer and more flexible builds you need, because you are scouting worse than a pro and you might not recognize your opponents build from peeking at the opponents mineral patch once .. Also the lower ladders are full of people executing strange cheese each game ..
* jdseemoreglasses showed that in contradiction to popular belief, an early pool/sacrificing some early larva does not have a large impact on eco in SC2 (early queen makes up for it somewhat) compared to SCBW.
* it seems like poeple overrate eco. An advantage of 100 to 200 minerals at say 6 minutes into the game is nothing. 99% of people will have this variance executing the same build twice, as they are not capable to execute the build that accurate in real games (including me ;-) ).
however i stick with early hatch first (12 hatch) except on small maps or 2v2 games ..
Okay, while I agree that differences in opening builds don't seem to be necessarily game breaking, it does seem like some people are looking at the the variation in play the wrong way.
having 800 minerals in the bank +- 200 minerals due to variation is still worse than having 1000 minerals in the bank +- 200 minerals . You're still 200 minerals behind on your best day and 200 minerals behind on your worst day.
Most people aren't going to lose or win based off of what pool hatch combination they opened with, but it does affect the game. The way I see it is if other people have done the work for you, you might as well try the type of build that you like that leaves you with a few spare minerals compared to other builds that are like the one you chose.
I was using 12 pool because you do not sit on 3 larva, but 11 pool is better, it delays the larva after pool but faster zerglings means faster hatch if they go for the block and faster larva from queen also.
So, i go for: 10 Extractor trick 11 Overlord 11 Spawning Pool 16 Queen 18 Extractor 17 Zergling 18 Overlord 18 Hatchery 20 Overlord 20 Metabolic boost then take 2 off gas
I do not drone scout, my first 2 lings take out any scout or block very fast so there is verry little delay possible for the hatchery. I scout with my 2 lings and if i see 2 rax i go back and make lings with the larva from queen, when 2 rax hit, around 4:30 i have 10 lings 1 queen and 18 drones with expansion almost done and speed on the way.
The fact that there is no way to delay my hatch i think makes this the best econ build for pool first. Maybe 13Pool or some other have in theory a better econ but when you want to go 13 pool 15 hatch and it gets blocked i think you are way behind 11pool, why risk it?
I do also love 15 or 14 hatch with spine as soon as natural is up.
PS: I want to give a big "Thank YOU!" to Lomilar and jdseemoreglass for 11pool and to SCBuildorder and Haploid (sc2calc) - 2 very nice apps that helped me to fine tune my BO.
On December 14 2010 03:29 icezar wrote: The fact that there is no way to delay my hatch i think makes this the best econ build for pool first. Maybe 13Pool or some other have in theory a better econ but when you want to go 13 pool 15 hatch and it gets blocked i think you are way behind 11pool, why risk it?
13p15h puts the hatch down faster than 11p, so you can't really say the 15h is going to be blocked if the 18h wouldn't be. The 13pool isn't that much later than the 11pool, and 13pool never blocks larvae. Without the hatcheries going down, 13p might be *slightly* behind 11p, but definitely not "way behind". Hell, it might even be slightly ahead.
Hmm. Unless you're talking about those first lings being able to clear any block of the 18 hatch, but adding all that extra stuff (lings, extractor, an extra overlord before hatch) is delaying your hatch a *lot*.
On December 14 2010 03:29 icezar wrote: The fact that there is no way to delay my hatch i think makes this the best econ build for pool first. Maybe 13Pool or some other have in theory a better econ but when you want to go 13 pool 15 hatch and it gets blocked i think you are way behind 11pool, why risk it?
13p15h puts the hatch down faster than 11p, so you can't really say the 15h is going to be blocked if the 18h wouldn't be. The 13pool isn't that much later than the 11pool, and 13pool never blocks larvae. Without the hatcheries going down, 13p might be *slightly* behind 11p, but definitely not "way behind". Hell, it might even be slightly ahead.
Hmm. Unless you're talking about those first lings being able to clear any block of the 18 hatch, but adding all that extra stuff (lings, extractor, an extra overlord before hatch) is delaying your hatch a *lot*.
He is talking about using the lings to kill the scout/block.
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.
just letting everyone know this version of the build is slightly better than 11pool
by going 12pool you get the pool slightly faster (because you dont have to get the overlord) and you do that while also getting an extra drone (with the faster pool) this is purely better in every way as you are getting free economy. also with 12pool you reduce the amount of time you sit on 3 larva which means the build produces 1-2 more larva than 11/18 and it does this for free
I dont have the time to read the whole thread, but alot of the discussion seems to go around whether the 11 pool build does better against early aggression without taking a big economic hit. is there actually any proof (replays of high level games, and by high level i dont mean a random diamond replay)? Many people have been critizing the OP because he almost seems scared that he might be proven wrong, and tries everything to discredit his critics, and this is the impression i have gotten aswell. So please, dear op, try to be more open to critisism, especially when you try to set new "standard" for Zerg opening BOs...
The thing is, this BO might even work quite well a couple of times against someone, until he figures out how to adapt to it (especially in ZvT against 2 rax, i think many terrans will be taken by surprise by the BO and then play very suboptimal). But if you wanna set a new standard, it cannot be something that relies on your opponent not knowing how to react accordingly.
I might be wrong with my judgement, but i think its good to stay very skeptical until something proves to be effective in practise and in matches where it actually matters.
edit: another thing i noticed: people said that resources are very tight at the beginning with the 11 pool BO, which means, if you need to take early gas (which you have to in actual gameplay) or build at least 4 lings to kill their scout/scout yourself at the beginning you might actually then lack resources to pump drones. Compared to the 15h 14p build which i use, the 11p seems to suffer more.
I personally neither have the motivation to commit the time nor do i know what a good method is, but i think it would be good to test a BO like 15hatch 14pool 14 gas (or 17 gas, depends on map what i prefer) against the 11p 18 hatch and then take the gas at the same time in the 11p BO and also build a few lings at the beginning (like you have to do in a normal game). then you do your fancy graph thing with eco etc. again and also compare whether you can invest energy into a creep tumor early on in the 11 pool BO and whether the hatchery is up in time to build a spine crawler against hellion harras on maps with a choke at the natural. these are all factors where my intuition tells me that the 15 hatch builds do better at, but none of them is shown in your shiny graphs, but in a real game, they can matter way more than a few minerals.
DarKFoRcE should know But may be you can play it at least a couple of times, so you can share your thoughts about it? You said, pros need to play to judge. So, please, go on
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.
just letting everyone know this version of the build is slightly better than 11pool
by going 12pool you get the pool slightly faster (because you dont have to get the overlord) and you do that while also getting an extra drone (with the faster pool) this is purely better in every way as you are getting free economy. also with 12pool you reduce the amount of time you sit on 3 larva which means the build produces 1-2 more larva than 11/18 and it does this for free
IIRC, it was shown that when going for a double ET, doing both at once is better than going 11ET, then 12ET. The mining time is the same for either build, but you don't lose that extra 6 minerals by doing both at once.
I sincerly hope it's not better though. Doing 4+ tricks is just plain annoying.
On December 14 2010 04:09 DarKFoRcE wrote: I think it would be good to test a BO like 15hatch 14pool 14 gas (or 17 gas, depends on map what i prefer) against the 11p 18 hatch and then take the gas at the same time in the 11p BO and also build a few lings at the beginning (like you have to do in a normal game). then you do your fancy graph thing with eco etc. again and also compare whether you can invest energy into a creep tumor early on in the 11 pool BO and whether the hatchery is up in time to build a spine crawler against hellion harras on maps with a choke at the natural. these are all factors where my intuition tells me that the 15 hatch builds do better at, but none of them is shown in your shiny graphs, but in a real game, they can matter way more than a few minerals.
Indeed. And then the builds should really be compared to what you'll actually face from your opponent. It's pointless sacrificing economy and going 11-Overpool for, say, an early spine crawler at 3:30 if the first attack from a 2-rax marine/SCV push isn't going to hit you until 4:30. Even if the econ difference turned out to be small, it would still be unnecessary in such a situation.
It might also be interesting to test the actual difference between making the first hatchery in-base and at your natural, for both Hatch First and Pool First builds.
RE, 12 pool (With the extractor tricks) being a bit more economical than 11 overpool, when I used http://sc2calc.org/build_order/ 11 overpool actual beat the 12 pool by a little bit (3462 vs 3395). I could have done something wrong here but these are the BOs I used:
# Startup Build Delay = 3 Seconds 10 Extractor trick 11 Overlord 11 Spawning Pool 16 Queen then constant Spawn Larvae 18 Hatchery then transfer 2 Drones (21 seconds lost) 17 Overlord 18 Overlord 21 Queen 28 Overlord 36 Overlord
Many people have been critizing the OP because he almost seems scared that he might be proven wrong, and tries everything to discredit his critics, and this is the impression i have gotten aswell. So please, dear op, try to be more open to critisism, especially when you try to set new "standard" for Zerg opening BOs...
I think this is something that really needs emphasis. In this thread and others, JDSMG seems overly defensive, and even says he's losing faith in the community. Chill out, and realize that when you try to offer something up as the new standard, the onus is on you to support it. If people offer a (logical) criticism, you don't need to get upset and demand proof. Especially when you want to use flamboyant titles like "NEW ZERG STANDARD" instead of something like "new early pool build" or "solid late gas build"
If you want something to be generally accepted by the community, maybe you should actually work to earn their acceptance instead of giving out an idea and then demanding them to prove you wrong (that might be a good enough strategy to base religion on, but come on... this is Starcraft)
On December 15 2010 00:11 Warrior Madness wrote: RE, 12 pool (With the extractor tricks) being a bit more economical than 11 overpool, when I used http://sc2calc.org/build_order/ 11 overpool actual beat the 12 pool by a little bit (3462 vs 3395). I could have done something wrong here but these are the BOs I used:
If you can post a replay demonstrating a 12pool being superior to the posted 11 pool replays, that's another story, but my own testing showed 12 pool being inferior in just about every way.
Many people have been critizing the OP because he almost seems scared that he might be proven wrong, and tries everything to discredit his critics, and this is the impression i have gotten aswell. So please, dear op, try to be more open to critisism, especially when you try to set new "standard" for Zerg opening BOs...
I think this is something that really needs emphasis. In this thread and others, JDSMG seems overly defensive, and even says he's losing faith in the community. Chill out, and realize that when you try to offer something up as the new standard, the onus is on you to support it. If people offer a (logical) criticism, you don't need to get upset and demand proof. Especially when you want to use flamboyant titles like "NEW ZERG STANDARD" instead of something like "new early pool build" or "solid late gas build"
If you want something to be generally accepted by the community, maybe you should actually work to earn their acceptance instead of giving out an idea and then demanding them to prove you wrong (that might be a good enough strategy to base religion on, but come on... this is Starcraft)
This is true. The OP's tone and unwillingness to give credence to the efforts of others has ticked off a lot of people in this thread. That said, he's finally accepted that 11 overpool does make economic sacrifices, so at least he's correct now.
Many people have been critizing the OP because he almost seems scared that he might be proven wrong, and tries everything to discredit his critics, and this is the impression i have gotten aswell. So please, dear op, try to be more open to critisism, especially when you try to set new "standard" for Zerg opening BOs...
I think this is something that really needs emphasis. In this thread and others, JDSMG seems overly defensive, and even says he's losing faith in the community. Chill out, and realize that when you try to offer something up as the new standard, the onus is on you to support it. If people offer a (logical) criticism, you don't need to get upset and demand proof. Especially when you want to use flamboyant titles like "NEW ZERG STANDARD" instead of something like "new early pool build" or "solid late gas build"
If you want something to be generally accepted by the community, maybe you should actually work to earn their acceptance instead of giving out an idea and then demanding them to prove you wrong (that might be a good enough strategy to base religion on, but come on... this is Starcraft)
This is true. The OP's tone and unwillingness to give credence to the efforts of others has ticked off a lot of people in this thread. That said, he's finally accepted that 11 overpool does make economic sacrifices, so at least he's correct now.
Time to let it go.
You came back and found this thread which had already dropped to the second page since yesterday just to criticize me one more time?
My unwillingness to accept irrational and unsupported claims is clearly not the problem here.
I don't understand why so many people are posting to adress the OP directly. Can't that be done in a private message instead of cluttering the thread? Why are you guys so offended by what the TC says, you act like he's insulted you personally.
What I want to see (especially from the naysayers) is this build falling to early pressure or being severely economically stunted as a result of holding. Has anything like that been presented yet?
Harbinger - It is because he is directly addressing us and he has insulted several people personally, including the professional starcraft gamers. His exact words from another thread in regards to defending 2 racks with hatch first (As per pro suggestion): "It's like the pros played a practical joke on us" and there's more than just that one. Like Darkforce said, he refuses to be openminded about any other build and refuses to believe that anyone other than himself is right.
Go through this thread, I was a huge supporter of the build and posted a bunch of replays supporting it. I am very interested in the idea of the build (and I still am) but everyone needs to keep an open mind about it and be objective. I too would love to see 14 Hatch/14pool compared when it comes to defending early pressure.
Many people have been critizing the OP because he almost seems scared that he might be proven wrong, and tries everything to discredit his critics, and this is the impression i have gotten aswell. So please, dear op, try to be more open to critisism, especially when you try to set new "standard" for Zerg opening BOs...
I think this is something that really needs emphasis. In this thread and others, JDSMG seems overly defensive, and even says he's losing faith in the community. Chill out, and realize that when you try to offer something up as the new standard, the onus is on you to support it. If people offer a (logical) criticism, you don't need to get upset and demand proof. Especially when you want to use flamboyant titles like "NEW ZERG STANDARD" instead of something like "new early pool build" or "solid late gas build"
If you want something to be generally accepted by the community, maybe you should actually work to earn their acceptance instead of giving out an idea and then demanding them to prove you wrong (that might be a good enough strategy to base religion on, but come on... this is Starcraft)
This is true. The OP's tone and unwillingness to give credence to the efforts of others has ticked off a lot of people in this thread. That said, he's finally accepted that 11 overpool does make economic sacrifices, so at least he's correct now.
Time to let it go.
You came back and found this thread which had already dropped to the second page since yesterday just to criticize me one more time?
My unwillingness to accept irrational and unsupported claims is clearly not the problem here.
hey, it took you just 40 pages to admit a pretty simple fact that was mentioned very often and even explained in detail. still don't see any problem why this thread is totally derailed and your connection with it? btw this post of you is one of those example where you act irrational and unwilling to accept simple facts.
Did already someone coined a name for this build template? I mean, "11P18H" does not sound too memorable. My proposals would be "OP build" where OP actually stands for Overpool, not for overpowered (however the pun is intended) or more specific "11OP". Probably someone (JDSMG?) has way better proposals.
The simple fact that so many of you have more against jdseemoreglass then the BO means that it is a good BO :D. Only time will tell if this will become the standard on not.
I've been calling it the Lomilar build (User that submitted it) but if it does catch on, I would imagine it would just be called the 11pool/18hatch like every other build. The 6 through 14 pools don't have their own names, the 12 through 16 hatch first then pools don't have a name... it's just the supply number, which works well.
As far as this becoming the standard: I really don't think so. I think 14hatch will continue to be the standard against terran and the 14 pool will continue to be more popular than this 11 pool. Don't get me wrong, I like the build, I just don't think it will overthrow the others anytime soon.
I've seen quite some discussion about this build vs T, but I actually found it very strong in ZvZ, which is by far my worst MU. Yesteryday I went 4-1 in ZvZ games with this build (I'm in plat).
I combine this build with an early 9 scout to start with early worker harrassment. The early pool tends to freak out the enemy zerg and you will have speedlings a lot earlier. If he expands you can punish him by massing speedlings. By keeping the drones on gas you have some early tech options (roaches, lair or +1 melee). Flexibility is what makes this build strong.
The biggest vulnerability is when the opponent goes for banelings, which is also the one loss I had. Good scouting in combination with a Roach Warren should take care of this threat..
On December 15 2010 20:17 Morphs wrote: I've seen quite some discussion about this build vs T, but I actually found it very strong in ZvZ, which is by far my worst MU. Yesteryday I went 4-1 in ZvZ games with this build (I'm in plat).
I combine this build with an early 9 scout to start with early worker harrassment. The early pool tends to freak out the enemy zerg and you will have speedlings a lot earlier. If he expands you can punish him by massing speedlings. By keeping the drones on gas you have some early tech options (roaches, lair or +1 melee). Flexibility is what makes this build strong.
The biggest vulnerability is when the opponent goes for banelings, which is also the one loss I had. Good scouting in combination with a Roach Warren should take care of this threat..
I dont see what a 9 pool has to do with the build presented in the OP, its like, something completely different.. a 9 pool sacrifices alot of economy, but on most maps your lings will arrive too late to do any significant damage.
Many people have been critizing the OP because he almost seems scared that he might be proven wrong, and tries everything to discredit his critics, and this is the impression i have gotten aswell. So please, dear op, try to be more open to critisism, especially when you try to set new "standard" for Zerg opening BOs...
I think this is something that really needs emphasis. In this thread and others, JDSMG seems overly defensive, and even says he's losing faith in the community. Chill out, and realize that when you try to offer something up as the new standard, the onus is on you to support it. If people offer a (logical) criticism, you don't need to get upset and demand proof. Especially when you want to use flamboyant titles like "NEW ZERG STANDARD" instead of something like "new early pool build" or "solid late gas build"
If you want something to be generally accepted by the community, maybe you should actually work to earn their acceptance instead of giving out an idea and then demanding them to prove you wrong (that might be a good enough strategy to base religion on, but come on... this is Starcraft)
This is true. The OP's tone and unwillingness to give credence to the efforts of others has ticked off a lot of people in this thread. That said, he's finally accepted that 11 overpool does make economic sacrifices, so at least he's correct now.
Time to let it go.
You came back and found this thread which had already dropped to the second page since yesterday just to criticize me one more time?
My unwillingness to accept irrational and unsupported claims is clearly not the problem here.
See, this is exactly what i was talking about. Are you saying that noone is allowed to critize you anymore just because there has not been a post in the thread for a couple of hours? What does this have to do with your unwillingness to accept critisism? This is just another ad hominem attack by you.
On December 15 2010 18:38 icezar wrote: The simple fact that so many of you have more against jdseemoreglass then the BO means that it is a good BO :D. Only time will tell if this will become the standard on not.
Another complete non-sense argument. Just because OP acts like a pretty big douche here and there doesnt make his BO better.
On December 15 2010 22:48 DarKFoRcE wrote: I dont see what a 9 pool has to do with the build presented in the OP, its like, something completely different.
9 scout, not 9 pool.
On December 15 2010 19:09 roadrunner343 wrote: I've been calling it the Lomilar build (User that submitted it) but if it does catch on, I would imagine it would just be called the 11pool/18hatch like every other build.
May be "modified Lomilar" or just "Lomilar" is a good start.
On December 15 2010 22:48 DarKFoRcE wrote: I dont see what a 9 pool has to do with the build presented in the OP, its like, something completely different.
On December 15 2010 19:09 roadrunner343 wrote: I've been calling it the Lomilar build (User that submitted it) but if it does catch on, I would imagine it would just be called the 11pool/18hatch like every other build.
May be "modified Lomilar" or just "Lomilar" is a good start.
May be I call it "Lomilar+1" because the first four positions are moved 1 supply up.
Sorry i missread. So are you scouting early just so you can harras his workers a little..? I doubt its worth it. Also, are you sure you have speedlings so much earlier than a 14 gas 14 pool build? Im curious about the timing here, because its hard for me to believe that you can get a queen and speed in time while keeping up ling production.
On December 15 2010 22:48 DarKFoRcE wrote: I dont see what a 9 pool has to do with the build presented in the OP, its like, something completely different.
9 scout, not 9 pool.
On December 15 2010 19:09 roadrunner343 wrote: I've been calling it the Lomilar build (User that submitted it) but if it does catch on, I would imagine it would just be called the 11pool/18hatch like every other build.
May be "modified Lomilar" or just "Lomilar" is a good start.
May be I call it "Lomilar+1" because the first four positions are moved 1 supply up.
Sorry i missread. So are you scouting early just so you can harras his workers a little..? I doubt its worth it. Also, are you sure you have speedlings so much earlier than a 14 gas 14 pool build? Im curious about the timing here, because its hard for me to believe that you can get a queen and speed in time while keeping up ling production.
the original build doesn't include gas. though some people modified it to support gas at 18 before or after(?) hatch. speed is definately way later than a 14 gas 14 pool. you can have lings faster though, but it will hurt your economy more than a 14 pool. to add a name: this build is called 11pool 18 hatch. dunno why people want to rename it.
On December 16 2010 00:35 DarKFoRcE wrote: Sorry i missread. So are you scouting early just so you can harras his workers a little..? I doubt its worth it. Also, are you sure you have speedlings so much earlier than a 14 gas 14 pool build? Im curious about the timing here, because its hard for me to believe that you can get a queen and speed in time while keeping up ling production.
I normally scout with 10th or 11th drone, but I am currently just silver ranked ;(
With this build I usually take gas at 15. So you get speedlings later that my second-next favoured BO (14 gas 13 pool) but you can get speedlings quite early. Starting queen at 16 is nice for early larvae, but of course the larvae from the second hatch come a bit later.
Since i am a newb, I sometimes skip the hatch in favour of a roach warren for early pressure.
are there any replays out from the statistics u made graph, id like to see those 2 replays where u just test out the economics tnx
also i dont see why u wanna make this build vs toss, it seems like ur wasting eco to get slow lings to stop early aggression and delaying ur speed for a long time. the key to stop stalker aggresion is speedling so it doesnt make sense in head head why u would not want to open 14gas14pool vs toss
On December 16 2010 02:08 MorroW wrote: are there any replays out from the statistics u made graph, id like to see those 2 replays where u just test out the economics tnx
also i dont see why u wanna make this build vs toss, it seems like ur wasting eco to get slow lings to stop early aggression and delaying ur speed for a long time. the key to stop stalker aggresion is speedling so it doesnt make sense in head head why u would not want to open 14gas14pool vs toss
On December 16 2010 02:08 MorroW wrote: are there any replays out from the statistics u made graph, id like to see those 2 replays where u just test out the economics tnx
also i dont see why u wanna make this build vs toss, it seems like ur wasting eco to get slow lings to stop early aggression and delaying ur speed for a long time. the key to stop stalker aggresion is speedling so it doesnt make sense in head head why u would not want to open 14gas14pool vs toss
On December 16 2010 02:08 MorroW wrote: are there any replays out from the statistics u made graph, id like to see those 2 replays where u just test out the economics tnx
also i dont see why u wanna make this build vs toss, it seems like ur wasting eco to get slow lings to stop early aggression and delaying ur speed for a long time. the key to stop stalker aggresion is speedling so it doesnt make sense in head head why u would not want to open 14gas14pool vs toss
On December 16 2010 02:08 MorroW wrote: are there any replays out from the statistics u made graph, id like to see those 2 replays where u just test out the economics tnx
also i dont see why u wanna make this build vs toss, it seems like ur wasting eco to get slow lings to stop early aggression and delaying ur speed for a long time. the key to stop stalker aggresion is speedling so it doesnt make sense in head head why u would not want to open 14gas14pool vs toss
If you check right above the graph there is a spoiler which includes the two replays. These replays are superior to the ones posted in the previous thread because they use a better method of execution.
On December 16 2010 02:08 MorroW wrote: are there any replays out from the statistics u made graph, id like to see those 2 replays where u just test out the economics tnx
also i dont see why u wanna make this build vs toss, it seems like ur wasting eco to get slow lings to stop early aggression and delaying ur speed for a long time. the key to stop stalker aggresion is speedling so it doesnt make sense in head head why u would not want to open 14gas14pool vs toss
This has the most information about the economies.
ah nvm ill read it now tnx it says 15h15p but in the bo it says 15h14p... xd
yeah, the 15h14p name is wrong. I didn't want to upload it again just to change the name. Good catch by the way. Most people don't notice those things.
anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
It's not really "strong". At least not from the data I got. If you notice it's the worst economy out of the builds I tested. It doesn't however have a poor economy. I think strong is the wrong word.
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p
the 13P15H was just my response to this threads claim that the 11P18H was the best pool first build. That's all. Also my tests are just meant to look at economic potential. I'm not claiming any of the builds are THE build that every zerg should be using. It's just data man.
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
The 4 best performing builds have been tested at various times. The reason for analyzing the economy was not for any kind of strategy discussion, just to show people how they each compared and what potential sacrifices are made.
I have another thread which offered variations on this build for each match-up to try and work out the best timings in each situation. For example, I started getting 14 gas in ZvZ before the hatch. Unfortunately the thread got buried and forgotten. Here is a link: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=176647
I am also running a thread which attempts to compare the 11Pool with 14Hatch in defending 2rax plays. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the best defense against 2rax, and also how this build responds to early pressure. There was no actual data on either of these things, so I have been doing some amateur testing, but there aren't many high-level Terran's willing to practice. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=176945
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p
the 13P15H was just my response to this threads claim that the 11P18H was the best pool first build. That's all. Also my tests are just meant to look at economic potential. I'm not claiming any of the builds are THE build that every zerg should be using. It's just data man.
so is this entire thread just to show that 11overpool 18hatch is the most economic pool no gas=>expo build? i thought we were talking about if it was most economical zerg build in the game just reading the title here "The new Zerg standard for all match-ups?" makes it sound like u wanna compete with a hatchfirst build in econ
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p
the 13P15H was just my response to this threads claim that the 11P18H was the best pool first build. That's all. Also my tests are just meant to look at economic potential. I'm not claiming any of the builds are THE build that every zerg should be using. It's just data man.
so is this entire thread just to show that 11overpool 18hatch is the most economic pool no gas=>expo build? i thought we were talking about if it was most economical zerg build in the game just reading the title here "The new Zerg standard for all match-ups?" makes it sound like u wanna compete with a hatchfirst build in econ
econ alone isn't what makes a build standard. This build has many significant advantages which are listed in detail in the OP with several replays. Also please check my previous post and the links provided.
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p
the 13P15H was just my response to this threads claim that the 11P18H was the best pool first build. That's all. Also my tests are just meant to look at economic potential. I'm not claiming any of the builds are THE build that every zerg should be using. It's just data man.
so is this entire thread just to show that 11overpool 18hatch is the most economic pool no gas=>expo build? i thought we were talking about if it was most economical zerg build in the game just reading the title here "The new Zerg standard for all match-ups?" makes it sound like u wanna compete with a hatchfirst build in econ
I'm very skeptical just like yourself... I really can't see how going 11 pool can be the best "economical" build for zerg.. I think the sentiment is that it's even better economically than going hatch first which sounds crazy to me (If I'm wrong i apologize). I don't care what someone's "statistics" say.. I will never use an 11 pool as my "standard" build.. NEVER (and I can almost guarantee it won't become standard in high level play).. it just doesn't feel right..
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p
the 13P15H was just my response to this threads claim that the 11P18H was the best pool first build. That's all. Also my tests are just meant to look at economic potential. I'm not claiming any of the builds are THE build that every zerg should be using. It's just data man.
so is this entire thread just to show that 11overpool 18hatch is the most economic pool no gas=>expo build? i thought we were talking about if it was most economical zerg build in the game just reading the title here "The new Zerg standard for all match-ups?" makes it sound like u wanna compete with a hatchfirst build in econ
Are you talking to me or jdglass? My econ thread is separate from this 11P18H thread. This thread is trying to show that the economy is good enough that the early pool makes up for the difference. They're doing lots of real game testing.
My thread, the one I linked you to, is simple economic potential analysis, and it puts hatch first builds as the creme of the crop economically. I think you might be confusing my econ thread as something that is trying to vouch for the 11P, which it is not.
On December 16 2010 02:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: You stay classy darkforce.
Darkforce is one of the top zerg in Europe. He is known for his deep strategical understanding. He is also known for his general kind behaviour. If he talks the way he did, he has a reason.
But I still support the idea that 11-Overpool, 16-Queen, 18-Hatch is a versatile and strong opening. Obviously not the best for all match-ups, but guys like me rather practice a single BO to be good at that one, instead of using many different BOs but execute them poorly. I also support the idea of a tranistion out of 11-Overpool in your new thread. The more I think about it, the more I think that 11-Overpool is in many way the best general start. I am glad (this is no irony) that you have the energy to discuss the 11-Overpool in a community which widely believes that a good eco requires a very late pool. Even if eventually it turnes out that 11-Overpool is an inferiour eco build, we should not judge on believes or a consent of a community. Let the cold facts count
I really wish there was more, no this doesn't work better i just tried it 4-15 times and it didn't work as well as blah blah blah...Of course followed up with some actual replays would be nice... All this "i think", "well that doesn't sound right", "i think 12 pool is better", is a joke. Also no matter how "Pro" you think you are your build cant be that solid if you not in the finals of GSL or winning every tourney you enter. So how about you test the build rather then tear it down.
A lurker for many years, he finally sees reason to create an account once SC2 came out. He reads the threads and sees countless posts theorycrafting and making outlandish claims without solid evidence or data to back it up. For days and days the forum is filled with post after post of people arguing points that could be solved by something as simple as a test or replay. But no one seems to follow through. Eventually each thread devolves into an egotistical flame war of people attacking eachother and accomplishing nothing for anyone.
So he decides to make a thread. This thread will have a solid approach, being as scientific as possible. Each criticism and complaint will not be simply debated with meaningless theory and argument: actual data and evidence that no reasonable person could reject would be provided to finally put an end to the debate and firmly establish a foundation for further discussion.
The purpose of the thread was to conclude with empirical evidence which zerg build was the most economical. He tried his best to strictly define the criteria and also preempt the inevitable criticisms that the most economical build was "irrelevant" to anything in the actual game.
The thread opened. At first there was a degree of optimism. People liked the idea of finally having some data instead of just taking someone's word for something. They seemed willing to help, to offer suggestions, to reach conclusions, and to limit the damage of passing trolls.
Unfortunately, as time went on, the thread became more and more about theorycraft and less about actual data. Some of the arguments and criticisms were reasonable. Some were clearly not. Jdseemoreglass and a few others did their best to answer each criticism. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that nothing could answer these claims except actual evidence.
So the OP set to work again. They said testing each build twice was not enough, so he tested multiple times. They said testing one time wasn't enough, so he tested in 30 second intervals. They said 6 minutes wasn't a long enough frame, so he extended the testing time. They said they wanted graphs to visualize the differences, so he put the data in an excel sheet and created graphs and posted them to the thread with replays as evidence.
Did this help things? Not at all...
The builds weren't viable in a real game. The builds didn't include gas. The builds didn't include scouting. Gas and scouting will hurt one build more than another... Was there evidence to backup these claims? No, but there didn't need to be. Any claim that could come into the mind was posted.
So jdseemoreglass had learned his lesson. He knew he could not combat baseless claims forever, and they would go on forever if he tried. He decided the next thread he created, he would make a change. He would demand that any claim or criticism had to have actual evidence to back it up. Theorycraft alone was not allowed.
And you should have seen the anger that arose. The OP is a jackass. The OP is a moron. The OP is a giant douche. The OP is a single-minded fanatic who refuses to listen to criticism! The OP is an ego-driven close-minded fool who ruins the thread with his unwillingness to be proven wrong with theory and claims.
Did anyone actually provide data to back up their claims? Yes. One person. jacobman created a thread to come up with data that was superior to the OP's, and he posted it. Once jdseemoreglass saw that this person had legitimate data and evidence and that his argument was reasonable, he stated so, and went back and changed the information in his OP to reflect the new results.
Did this change anyone's opinion? No. They already had fomented their irrational anger. Post after post continued to attack him. More people began joining the thread in order to post their own theorycraft. The build loses to zealots. The build loses to stalkers. The build loses to 2rax. The build is ruined if you try to get vespene gas. None of the pros have used the build. The build is worthless because it isn't the most economical possible.
So the OP went and opened notepad, and calmly wrote down his thoughts in order to prevent himself from snapping on the forum and getting himself temp-banned for insulting multiple people, pros included. And he decided to post it to the thread just for kicks. He knew the attacks would come, and they would pick apart each sentence and tear into the post like dogs on a carcass.
But he knew he could sit and read the posts, and have a laugh for a change...
the build is less economic then other builds but it can make up for parts by having the versatility of an early pool. As such it is a decent PvZ build order in these 2 scenario's: - small 2 player maps. By going a quick pool and a few quick lings you can remove the pylon or probe that is blocking your hatchery the quickest. The quick lings also force the P into making at least a zealot (so they can't do quick double stalker harass ala NexGenius) and means you don't have to scout (between your overlords and quick lings you are able to adapt to anything in time). These advantages outweigh the small economic setback you have compared to a 14 pool imo and 14 hatch is very unlikely to work on 2 player maps. Speedlings will be slightly later then a 14 gas 13 pool build but because you can delay their stalker production (by forcing a zealot) you will have more time to get speed up. As such it's a good PvZ build for steppes, blistering sands and xel naga imo.
- there is a very high chance your opponent will do a forge FE. By going with this 11 p 18 hatch build they will be forced to do a much less economical build then if you were to 14 pool (+ gas). For example if you go with a 14 pool build the protoss player can get away with 17 nexus, 17 forge, 18 pylon and be quite safe (see for example FD vs Hongun @ scrap GSL 3). If however the zerg goes a slightly earlier pool, the P is forced to go with a forge and often even a cannon before putting down the nexus. Severely delaying the protoss build order more then makes up for doing a slightly less economical build in this case (see LeenockFou vs Guineapig GSL 3). Also the quick access to a pair of lings means you can kill their scout a lot faster which makes it much easier to do some form of roach aggresion on their forge expo, for example getting 1 pair of lings when the pool finishes and then putting down a roach warren while the queen is 60% done (so the first inject coincides with the warren completing). Quick roaches are an incredibly easy win against a P who doesn't scout well afterall (FD vs Hongun @ shakuras GSL 3). Finally if the P did NOT forge FE you are still in a decent position as this 11 pool build doesn't cut that much. As such it's a good PvZ build on maps like LT, shakuras and jungle basin against a protoss who likes to FE (which are most koreans pro's on those maps at the moment)
Allinall 11 pool like this is the best combination between a fast pool and a economy build imo. It is good in the same scenario's fast pool builds were already being used before but is so efficient that you are not that far behind in economy compared to a normal build. It is at least much better then 9 pool or 10 overpool for example which also sacrifice some economy for (fake) early pressure. I still think Z should do 14 hatch almost all the time though only to switch it up occasionally with 14 gas/13 pool and this build to throw the opponent off guard.
You know that you could've saved yourself all the time, anger and frustration by just not assuming your approach of figuring out the game at such an early stage was by far the best one.
Jdseemoreglass and a few others did their best to answer each criticism.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
You called people trolls from page 8. That's 40 pages ago.
Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion.
But I guess nothing will change your worldview. You're just the poor scientist surrounded by theorycrafting trolls that would copy the pros mindlessly even if they went 4pool as the new Zerg standard for all match-ups (yes that's the one where you kill 2 drones).
Oh yeah, and basically every half-way literate poster in this thread and others has a problem with your attitude. So maybe, ... JUST MAYBE, you're part of the problem. Have you ever considered that?
On December 16 2010 03:51 ChickenLips wrote: You know that you could've saved yourself all the time, anger and frustration by just not assuming your approach of figuring out the game at such an early stage was by far the best one.
Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion.
But I guess nothing will change your worldview. You're just the poor scientist surrounded by theorycrafting trolls that would copy the pros mindlessly even if they went 4pool as the new Zerg standard for all match-ups (yes that's the one where you kill 2 drones).
Oh yeah, and basically every half-way literate poster in this thread and others has a problem with your attitude. So maybe, ... JUST MAYBE, you're part of the problem. Have you ever considered that?
On December 16 2010 03:33 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +
A history of jdseemoreglass
A lurker for many years, he finally sees reason to create an account once SC2 came out. He reads the threads and sees countless posts theorycrafting and making outlandish claims without solid evidence or data to back it up. For days and days the forum is filled with post after post of people arguing points that could be solved by something as simple as a test or replay. But no one seems to follow through. Eventually each thread devolves into an egotistical flame war of people attacking eachother and accomplishing nothing for anyone.
So he decides to make a thread. This thread will have a solid approach, being as scientific as possible. Each criticism and complaint will not be simply debated with meaningless theory and argument: actual data and evidence that no reasonable person could reject would be provided to finally put an end to the debate and firmly establish a foundation for further discussion.
The purpose of the thread was to conclude with empirical evidence which zerg build was the most economical. He tried his best to strictly define the criteria and also preempt the inevitable criticisms that the most economical build was "irrelevant" to anything in the actual game.
The thread opened. At first there was a degree of optimism. People liked the idea of finally having some data instead of just taking someone's word for something. They seemed willing to help, to offer suggestions, to reach conclusions, and to limit the damage of passing trolls.
Unfortunately, as time went on, the thread became more and more about theorycraft and less about actual data. Some of the arguments and criticisms were reasonable. Some were clearly not. Jdseemoreglass and a few others did their best to answer each criticism. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that nothing could answer these claims except actual evidence.
So the OP set to work again. They said testing each build twice was not enough, so he tested multiple times. They said testing one time wasn't enough, so he tested in 30 second intervals. They said 6 minutes wasn't a long enough frame, so he extended the testing time. They said they wanted graphs to visualize the differences, so he put the data in an excel sheet and created graphs and posted them to the thread with replays as evidence.
Did this help things? Not at all...
The builds weren't viable in a real game. The builds didn't include gas. The builds didn't include scouting. Gas and scouting will hurt one build more than another... Was there evidence to backup these claims? No, but there didn't need to be. Any claim that could come into the mind was posted.
So jdseemoreglass had learned his lesson. He knew he could not combat baseless claims forever, and they would go on forever if he tried. He decided the next thread he created, he would make a change. He would demand that any claim or criticism had to have actual evidence to back it up. Theorycraft alone was not allowed.
And you should have seen the anger that arose. The OP is a jackass. The OP is a moron. The OP is a giant douche. The OP is a single-minded fanatic who refuses to listen to criticism! The OP is an ego-driven close-minded fool who ruins the thread with his unwillingness to be proven wrong with theory and claims.
Did anyone actually provide data to back up their claims? Yes. One person. jacobman created a thread to come up with data that was superior to the OP's, and he posted it. Once jdseemoreglass saw that this person had legitimate data and evidence and that his argument was reasonable, he stated so, and went back and changed the information in his OP to reflect the new results.
Did this change anyone's opinion? No. They already had fomented their irrational anger. Post after post continued to attack him. More people began joining the thread in order to post their own theorycraft. The build loses to zealots. The build loses to stalkers. The build loses to 2rax. The build is ruined if you try to get vespene gas. None of the pros have used the build. The build is worthless because it isn't the most economical possible.
So the OP went and opened notepad, and calmly wrote down his thoughts in order to prevent himself from snapping on the forum and getting himself temp-banned for insulting multiple people, pros included. And he decided to post it to the thread just for kicks. He knew the attacks would come, and they would pick apart each sentence and tear into the post like dogs on a carcass.
But he knew he could sit and read the posts, and have a laugh for a change...
Epic comment. BTW, I thought you presented your most recent post on the 11P great. Whatever happened to that one?
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. Just to recap so we can stop this stupid argument:
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. For example if you scout before 11 you will have more idle time on your hatchery. Not so with other builds... For example if you get early gas and lings you will have a delay on your 2nd hatchery. Not so with hatch first builds... For example if you get early gas and/or too many lings you will have trouble making your 2nd queen directly after your first, again much less so with a 14 pool build...
In other words deviating from the build DOES hurt this more then other builds and this has been proven tons of times already and I just did so again. Basically any build that sacrifices some early minerals to get more larvae will have a harder time actually spending all those larvae, zerg has a ton of options to effectively spend minerals on when you don't have alot of larvae (queens, hatcheries, lings gas, scouting) but can't use larvae when you dont have minerals. That makes this build less adaptable then other builds (adapting goes at the cost of efficiency more so then with other builds).
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work
to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy
is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p
this is what's wrong with this thread. it's relying on false data and an ignorant op. also it's pretty pointless to argue with the op since he is just calling everyone a troll that doesn't think this build will become the new standard (in any matchup on any map rofl). he disqualified himself (and his statistics) totally when he said his build is superior in economy to a 14 pool build before the first larvae pops when he actually wastes larvae due to waiting for an 11 overlord and pool. he got proven wrong (even with statistics) and it took him just 40 pages to even admit that an 11 pool is behind initially. the builds it is compared to also don't make sense at all.
to the ops history: there were really valid concerns showing that your data must be flawed! do you think the people will sit down and test everything just to prove you wrong??? pretty naive thinking here. how about some self-critics? maybe some critics (myself included) where a bit harsh but what the hell do you expect. you claimed you found the BEST possible zerg opening on ANY map in ANY matchup. just ONE valid concern against a standard build of the other races proves this statement wrong... if you make it THAT easy for people to prove you wrong maybe it is your own fault? also your statistics were just wrong in favor to your build.
On December 16 2010 03:47 Markwerf wrote:Allinall 11 pool like this is the best combination between a fast pool and a economy build imo. It is good in the same scenario's fast pool builds were already being used before but is so efficient that you are not that far behind in economy compared to a normal build. It is at least much better then 9 pool or 10 overpool for example which also sacrifice some economy for (fake) early pressure. I still think Z should do 14 hatch almost all the time though only to switch it up occasionally with 14 gas/13 pool and this build to throw the opponent off guard.
i would say it has timing issues compared to an 9 pool against P. the lings come in too late to the front to do any damage as the protoss is already walled in. you just can't have both an early aggressive opening and a solid economy. against zerg it's debattable as it is versatile. but you don't need this kind of versatility normally. if you expect your opponent to fast exp you can make a 6 pool, if you want economy and feel safe go 14 hatch and if you want to be safe just 14 gas 14 pool. it is a niche build for players that like to "feel" safe and don't commit to one style in the beginning.
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
Also, whose the one belittling other peoples results now?
On December 16 2010 04:27 Markwerf wrote: testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
TESTING!?! omg WHERE!?!
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. Just to recap so we can stop this stupid argument:
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. For example if you scout before 11 you will have more idle time on your hatchery. Not so with other builds... For example if you get early gas and lings you will have a delay on your 2nd hatchery. Not so with hatch first builds... For example if you get early gas and/or too many lings you will have trouble making your 2nd queen directly after your first, again much less so with a 14 pool build...
In other words deviating from the build DOES hurt this more then other builds and this has been proven tons of times already and I just did so again. Basically any build that sacrifices some early minerals to get more larvae will have a harder time actually spending all those larvae, zerg has a ton of options to effectively spend minerals on when you don't have alot of larvae (queens, hatcheries, lings gas, scouting) but can't use larvae when you dont have minerals. That makes this build less adaptable then other builds (adapting goes at the cost of efficiency more so then with other builds).
Here wait, let's try an experiment... I'm gonna respond to your theorycraft with theorycraft of my own... This will be good practice for me.
"Actually, given the data and graphs previously posted, we have assessed we can fairly conclude that the criteria of "total minerals mined" is fairly similar over an extended period of time for each build. Therefore, given that each build has close to the same amount of money at each point in time, it is irrational to assume that one build will have a significantly more difficult time in getting the same number of units and buildings as the other."
There, see now you respond with your own theorycraft counter argument and we can go back and forth all day.
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 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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... yet there was a 40pages discussion because people like you or the op just want RAW DATA when it is actually a lot easier to think for a moment.
"Actually, given the data and graphs previously posted, we have assessed we can fairly conclude that the criteria of "total minerals mined" is fairly similar over an extended period of time for each build. Therefore, given that each build has close to the same amount of money at each point in time, it is irrational to assume that one build will have a significantly more difficult time in getting the same number of units and buildings as the other."
There, see now you respond with your own theorycraft counter argument and we can go back and forth all day.
Am I doing this right guys?
you should learn to use your brain in a correct way instead of just making a fool of yourself. logic is not your strength (as is reading comprehension). PS: YOUR DATA IS WRONG! proven by actual logic of many not mindless people in here.
On December 16 2010 03:51 ChickenLips wrote: You know that you could've saved yourself all the time, anger and frustration by just not assuming your approach of figuring out the game at such an early stage was by far the best one.
Jdseemoreglass and a few others did their best to answer each criticism.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
You called people trolls from page 8. That's 40 pages ago.
Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion.
But I guess nothing will change your worldview. You're just the poor scientist surrounded by theorycrafting trolls that would copy the pros mindlessly even if they went 4pool as the new Zerg standard for all match-ups (yes that's the one where you kill 2 drones).
Oh yeah, and basically every half-way literate poster in this thread and others has a problem with your attitude. So maybe, ... JUST MAYBE, you're part of the problem. Have you ever considered that?
lol...
You know what gives me satisfaction? That someone like you, that will argue and discuss seemingly until his last breath, is completely unable to refute my arguments not only once but twice now. It gives me the knowledge that there is absolutely no substance behind what you stand for and that I am one of the lucky ones that hasn't wasted a bucketton of time in this weird thread that you so desperately try to make about youself. Good day.
This thread is becoming a noman's land. I'm surprized there isn't yet some warn due to incorrect language, obvious troll (from the 2 sides i regret), and so.
On topic, i was wondering if there was a thread discussing the "best" build on playXP. It would be interesting to see if they've come to the same "debate" (i believe there was one, before the flaming war kicked in).
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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...
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 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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... yet there was a 40pages discussion because people like you or the op just want RAW DATA when it is actually a lot easier to think for a moment.
This is why the OP has called some people trolls. While I'm sure you mean well, in that you're trying to present the truth, starting your comment this way isn't the way the do things.
JUST USE YOUR BRAIN. goddamn
If I didn't know better I would think that you're baiting me into getting mad and going off on you.
Anyways, despite all of that, I disagree with your idea that you can just think everything through and know what will happen. While that's generally a great place to start, it definitely is not proof. Yes, I happen to think that some of the early sacrifices in the 11 pool (slowing down the rate of drone production in the very beginning) will translate to some sort of loss if you try and squeeze gas between the pool and hatch, but I do not think anyone knows how big that difference will be. If it's only 50 minerals, that doesn't change our conversation about the build very much.
Also, being disrespectful doesn't give any more or less merit to your ideas, so try and leave that part out of it.
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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...
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...
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 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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...
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...
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?
Ok... this is fun...
"WTF do you mean opportunity cost? What opportunity cost can you possibly have when you have only drones and no spawning pool? Opportunity for what? Making more drones? This doesn't make any sense!"
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.
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 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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...
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...
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?
It was a valid point, and I am not offended. I'm not easily offended, but I do like it when people keep things civil. Anyways, the only point I was trying to make was that I think having actual numbers is relevant. Even though gas should affect the 11 pool more, how big of a difference is it? Like I said, if it's around 50 minerals, that won't change the discussion about the 11 pool very much. Maybe I responded to the wrong comment before. I don't know.
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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...
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...
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?
Ok... this is fun...
no it's not. sorry i overreacted a bit. i'm out.
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?
see, this is the problem with all those data in the threads. they have totally different foundations and thus the results will vary. also IMHO there is no point in making a build down to every overlord until 50 supply. you will NEVER make the bo the exact same way in an actual game. sc2 is not this static and you have to react to an opponents decision way before 50 supply. therefore all i wanted to say with my brain sentence is that a logically foundated statement shouldn't be treated inferior to some made up data.
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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...
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...
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?
It was a valid point, and I am not offended. I'm not easily offended, but I do like it when people keep things civil. Anyways, the only point I was trying to make was that I think having actual numbers is relevant. Even though gas should affect the 11 pool more, how big of a difference is it? Like I said, if it's around 50 minerals, that won't change the discussion about the 11 pool very much. Maybe I responded to the wrong comment before. I don't know.
He was talking to me actually...
lol jacobman... I think it is funny you are still trying to be reasonable about things... The purpose of this thread isn't about data or conclusions, it's about bashing the OP now. Get it?
I might even tempt them into providing solid data IN ORDER to bash me and say "nana nana na na, you were wrong!"
On December 16 2010 04:27 Markwerf wrote: testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. Just to recap so we can stop this stupid argument:
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. For example if you scout before 11 you will have more idle time on your hatchery. Not so with other builds... For example if you get early gas and lings you will have a delay on your 2nd hatchery. Not so with hatch first builds... For example if you get early gas and/or too many lings you will have trouble making your 2nd queen directly after your first, again much less so with a 14 pool build...
In other words deviating from the build DOES hurt this more then other builds and this has been proven tons of times already and I just did so again. Basically any build that sacrifices some early minerals to get more larvae will have a harder time actually spending all those larvae, zerg has a ton of options to effectively spend minerals on when you don't have alot of larvae (queens, hatcheries, lings gas, scouting) but can't use larvae when you dont have minerals. That makes this build less adaptable then other builds (adapting goes at the cost of efficiency more so then with other builds).
Here wait, let's try an experiment... I'm gonna respond to your theorycraft with theorycraft of my own... This will be good practice for me.
"Actually, given the data and graphs previously posted, we have assessed we can fairly conclude that the criteria of "total minerals mined" is fairly similar over an extended period of time for each build. Therefore, given that each build has close to the same amount of money at each point in time, it is irrational to assume that one build will have a significantly more difficult time in getting the same number of units and buildings as the other."
There, see now you respond with your own theorycraft counter argument and we can go back and forth all day.
Am I doing this right guys?
Just let it go. If you stop trying to get the last word, people will stop arguing. Several people, myself included, thought it was fishy that a pool on 11 (which inherently gets drones 12-14 slower than a 14 pool) would mine as many minerals in the 11-20 food range as a 14 pool. It didn't make sense, so we ran some quick tests and confirmed our suspicions. You ignored our results and said yours were better. Then Jacobman came in with ridiculously good evidence and you conceded the point. People are a little annoyed still because you discredited all opposition to your theory, and then you turned out to be wrong. But this could still be a useful thread if you'd just accept that you kind of freaked out when people (correctly) didn't accept your rather extreme claim that 11 pool doesn't sacrifice any economy. Or you could just not respond to people, and they'd move on.
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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...
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...
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?
Ok... this is fun...
"WTF do you mean opportunity cost? What opportunity cost can you possibly have when you have only drones and no spawning pool? Opportunity for what? Making more drones? This doesn't make any sense!"
"Try again."
Personally, I think that actual numbers are needed (hopefully by the people that claim it makes a big difference) to show that it even matters if the 11 pool is affected more by things such as gas. Like I said a few times, if it's only 50 minerals more that the 11 pool loses, that doesn't change the discussion about the build much at all.
If we're talking theory-crafting here, there does seem like there is reason to believe the 11 pool would be affected more by early gas. Because you're spending time in the beginning waiting for minerals to make the pool, rather than using those minerals for drones, you are obviously delaying some early drones compared to, lets say a 15 Hatch. This means that you'll be slightly behind in minerals at some extremely early point in the game. This causes tiny tiny delays and possible unforeseen extra delays due to nuances in mineral needs at particular times.
However, theory-crafting, I would guess most of those setbacks due to the drones are included in the economic differences we measured. I would also guess that the effect that this setback in drones would have on what happens when you get gas, would be very very very small, essentially inconsequential. My guess is that the biggest differences in economy from build to build have already been measured, in our previous tests.
Just let it go. If you stop trying to get the last word, people will stop arguing.
You kidding? I am having too much fun to quit now.
And look, my thread has almost hit 1000 posts... Having a constructive discussion with data and testing is clearly not as conducive to forum popularity as endless flaming and trolling. Maybe this thread will be a lesson to others that TL is dying and to run for the nearest shelter lmao...
I really want my 1000th post to be something super-troll... Like half the words in caps and at least two instances of name-calling. That would be the icing on the cake.
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds.
EVIDENCE!?!? omg...
Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!?
- the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build.
- the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build).
As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others.
oh... damn...
This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations.
Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass.
Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs).
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?
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...
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...
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?
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?
see, this is the problem with all those data in the threads. they have totally different foundations and thus the results will vary. also IMHO there is no point in making a build down to every overlord until 50 supply. you will NEVER make the bo the exact same way in an actual game. sc2 is not this static and you have to react to an opponents decision way before 50 supply. therefore all i wanted to say with my brain sentence is that a logically foundated statement shouldn't be treated inferior to some made up data.
You're right about builds. I don't actually pay attention to the build after the second queen when I play a real game. The only reason that overlord times are used in my test to such a late time is for consistency in the testing results.
I swear this thread is more full of trolling and the like than was the fucking GUIDE to trolling that was submitted in the contest about a year ago to win a beta key (I think... I could be wrong on the prize rofl). Come on people >.>...
Just let it go. If you stop trying to get the last word, people will stop arguing.
You kidding? I am having too much fun to quit now.
And look, my thread has almost hit 1000 posts... Having a constructive discussion with data and testing is clearly not as conducive to forum popularity as endless flaming and trolling. Maybe this thread will be a lesson to others that TL is dying and to run for the nearest shelter lmao...
I really want my 1000th post to be something super-troll... Like half the words in caps and at least two instances of name-calling. That would be the icing on the cake.
On December 16 2010 05:27 KnightOfNi wrote: Fail thread is fail.
I swear this thread is more full of trolling and the like than was the fucking GUIDE to trolling that was submitted in the contest about a year ago to win a beta key (I think... I could be wrong on the prize rofl). Come on people >.>...
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.
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.
On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with...
Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future.
Unfortunately, there is no adequate measure for the fall of man. However, even though we have no unit of measurement, that won't discourage me, I'll still give everything I've got to this project. If we're to graph pages compared to quality, we have to do it right. You see, the dependent variable is supposed to be the Y. The way you've got the graph drawn would mean that all long topics are inherently the absolute worst topics. That's obviously quite false.
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.
Is this really the 3rd post?
Err, meaning? The only way I can think to interpret that is "Is this really my 3rd post," which seems more bizarre than anything.
On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with...
Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future.
Unfortunately, there is no adequate measure for the fall of man. However, even though we have no unit of measurement, that won't discourage me, I'll still give everything I've got to this project. If we're to graph pages compared to quality, we have to do it right. You see, the dependent variable is supposed to be the Y. The way you've got the graph drawn would mean that all long topics are inherently the absolute worst topics. That's obviously quite false.
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.
Is this really the 3rd post?
Err, meaning? The only way I can think to interpret that is "Is this really my 3rd post," which seems more bizarre than anything.
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.
On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with...
Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future.
On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with...
Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future.
By god, this is genius. It's quite obvious from this data that the most economical way to discuss a topic is to start a new thread right before the most recent thread on the topic reaches two pages of comments. Even better, if I don't start a thread at all, I will have zero pages! I don't think anything can beat that.
On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with...
Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future.
Unfortunately, there is no adequate measure for the fall of man. However, even though we have no unit of measurement, that won't discourage me, I'll still give everything I've got to this project. If we're to graph pages compared to quality, we have to do it right. You see, the dependent variable is supposed to be the Y. The way you've got the graph drawn would mean that all long topics are inherently the absolute worst topics. That's obviously quite false.
On December 16 2010 05:43 jacobman wrote:
On December 16 2010 05:37 IronInko wrote:
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.
Is this really the 3rd post?
Err, meaning? The only way I can think to interpret that is "Is this really my 3rd post," which seems more bizarre than anything.
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.
Ah, I'm pretty out of it right now so I didn't even think about that. Alright, I meant thread. I remember the original thread, a 2nd one that attempted to avoid trolling, and then this one. I might be getting this wrong somewhere along the line, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a trivial detail. Although, upon retrospect, it's not like there was an important part of my post to begin with.
On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with...
Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future.
Unfortunately, there is no adequate measure for the fall of man. However, even though we have no unit of measurement, that won't discourage me, I'll still give everything I've got to this project. If we're to graph pages compared to quality, we have to do it right. You see, the dependent variable is supposed to be the Y. The way you've got the graph drawn would mean that all long topics are inherently the absolute worst topics. That's obviously quite false.
On December 16 2010 05:43 jacobman wrote:
On December 16 2010 05:37 IronInko wrote:
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.
Is this really the 3rd post?
Err, meaning? The only way I can think to interpret that is "Is this really my 3rd post," which seems more bizarre than anything.
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.
Ah, I'm pretty out of it right now so I didn't even think about that. Alright, I meant thread. I remember the original thread, a 2nd one that attempted to avoid trolling, and then this one. I might be getting this wrong somewhere along the line, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a trivial detail. Although, upon retrospect, it's not like there was an important part of my post to begin with.
Yeah, it's not important. I was just wondering because I thought there was only one thread before this one. I thought maybe I missed some cool information.
On December 16 2010 03:47 Markwerf wrote: @ morrow,
the build is less economic then other builds but it can make up for parts by having the versatility of an early pool. As such it is a decent PvZ build order in these 2 scenario's: - small 2 player maps. By going a quick pool and a few quick lings you can remove the pylon or probe that is blocking your hatchery the quickest. The quick lings also force the P into making at least a zealot (so they can't do quick double stalker harass ala NexGenius) and means you don't have to scout (between your overlords and quick lings you are able to adapt to anything in time). These advantages outweigh the small economic setback you have compared to a 14 pool imo and 14 hatch is very unlikely to work on 2 player maps. Speedlings will be slightly later then a 14 gas 13 pool build but because you can delay their stalker production (by forcing a zealot) you will have more time to get speed up. As such it's a good PvZ build for steppes, blistering sands and xel naga imo.
- there is a very high chance your opponent will do a forge FE. By going with this 11 p 18 hatch build they will be forced to do a much less economical build then if you were to 14 pool (+ gas). For example if you go with a 14 pool build the protoss player can get away with 17 nexus, 17 forge, 18 pylon and be quite safe (see for example FD vs Hongun @ scrap GSL 3). If however the zerg goes a slightly earlier pool, the P is forced to go with a forge and often even a cannon before putting down the nexus. Severely delaying the protoss build order more then makes up for doing a slightly less economical build in this case (see LeenockFou vs Guineapig GSL 3). Also the quick access to a pair of lings means you can kill their scout a lot faster which makes it much easier to do some form of roach aggresion on their forge expo, for example getting 1 pair of lings when the pool finishes and then putting down a roach warren while the queen is 60% done (so the first inject coincides with the warren completing). Quick roaches are an incredibly easy win against a P who doesn't scout well afterall (FD vs Hongun @ shakuras GSL 3). Finally if the P did NOT forge FE you are still in a decent position as this 11 pool build doesn't cut that much. As such it's a good PvZ build on maps like LT, shakuras and jungle basin against a protoss who likes to FE (which are most koreans pro's on those maps at the moment)
Allinall 11 pool like this is the best combination between a fast pool and a economy build imo. It is good in the same scenario's fast pool builds were already being used before but is so efficient that you are not that far behind in economy compared to a normal build. It is at least much better then 9 pool or 10 overpool for example which also sacrifice some economy for (fake) early pressure. I still think Z should do 14 hatch almost all the time though only to switch it up occasionally with 14 gas/13 pool and this build to throw the opponent off guard.
big tnx for this post was exactly what i was looking for :p in general i really dont understand anything thats going on in this thread. ill just move along and pretend i never heard of this build i guess, sorry^^
On December 16 2010 03:47 Markwerf wrote: @ morrow,
the build is less economic then other builds but it can make up for parts by having the versatility of an early pool. As such it is a decent PvZ build order in these 2 scenario's: - small 2 player maps. By going a quick pool and a few quick lings you can remove the pylon or probe that is blocking your hatchery the quickest. The quick lings also force the P into making at least a zealot (so they can't do quick double stalker harass ala NexGenius) and means you don't have to scout (between your overlords and quick lings you are able to adapt to anything in time). These advantages outweigh the small economic setback you have compared to a 14 pool imo and 14 hatch is very unlikely to work on 2 player maps. Speedlings will be slightly later then a 14 gas 13 pool build but because you can delay their stalker production (by forcing a zealot) you will have more time to get speed up. As such it's a good PvZ build for steppes, blistering sands and xel naga imo.
- there is a very high chance your opponent will do a forge FE. By going with this 11 p 18 hatch build they will be forced to do a much less economical build then if you were to 14 pool (+ gas). For example if you go with a 14 pool build the protoss player can get away with 17 nexus, 17 forge, 18 pylon and be quite safe (see for example FD vs Hongun @ scrap GSL 3). If however the zerg goes a slightly earlier pool, the P is forced to go with a forge and often even a cannon before putting down the nexus. Severely delaying the protoss build order more then makes up for doing a slightly less economical build in this case (see LeenockFou vs Guineapig GSL 3). Also the quick access to a pair of lings means you can kill their scout a lot faster which makes it much easier to do some form of roach aggresion on their forge expo, for example getting 1 pair of lings when the pool finishes and then putting down a roach warren while the queen is 60% done (so the first inject coincides with the warren completing). Quick roaches are an incredibly easy win against a P who doesn't scout well afterall (FD vs Hongun @ shakuras GSL 3). Finally if the P did NOT forge FE you are still in a decent position as this 11 pool build doesn't cut that much. As such it's a good PvZ build on maps like LT, shakuras and jungle basin against a protoss who likes to FE (which are most koreans pro's on those maps at the moment)
Allinall 11 pool like this is the best combination between a fast pool and a economy build imo. It is good in the same scenario's fast pool builds were already being used before but is so efficient that you are not that far behind in economy compared to a normal build. It is at least much better then 9 pool or 10 overpool for example which also sacrifice some economy for (fake) early pressure. I still think Z should do 14 hatch almost all the time though only to switch it up occasionally with 14 gas/13 pool and this build to throw the opponent off guard.
big tnx for this post was exactly what i was looking for :p
The fact that you had to go all the way back to pre-thread-apocalypse time to retrieve this comment got me thinkings. TL needs to adopt a reddit like system of comments. This way the more useful discussion can actually find it's way to the forefront, and people can make comments directly on other peoples comments instead of having conversations between people on one topic that span across pages of other topics.
STK, I would suggest at least trying it yourself once before you write it off. I definitely don't think this is the best build for all matchups, but after using it, it does feel quite good. I think on of the main things is your opponent will freak a little seeing the early pool, but instead of early aggression, you continue to drone. However, you also have the option of early aggression if you desire.
It's certainly a good build when used correctly, but it's still a long way from the standard.
EDIT: And this was the third thread... and great, now we get a fourth garbage thread -_-
Thanks for the post! I'm going to give this a shot tonight. I either fall way behind in economy or I can't spend my money fast enough. maybe this will help.
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case.
I had never heard of it either, but based the economic testing we've been doing, 13p/15h appears to be the most economic pool-first fast expand build, with just the right tradeoffs between queen production and hatchery placement.
no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this
No offense to korean zerg progamers, but I still see a lot of them doing a 10OL start, which is provably worse than just about every alternative. My guess is they have way better things to do with their time than figuring out minute details that only matter to freaks like me, and focus on things that make large differences rather than spending tons of time trying to figure out things that only make very small differences.
On December 16 2010 04:54 fleeze wrote: - larvae waste - opportunity cost
How bad is hatch larvae waste compared to the earlier queen injection?
according to tests done in a recent thread, doing 11h11pool or 10 hatch 13 pool (which waste ~3 larvae) are behind 200 to 300 minerals at 6'20 compared to 14h15pool. Regarding larvae they are same or slightly better (earlier inject). 10 hatch 13 pool gets hatch very early, so it is hard to block by a dock or pylon.
Well I thought this build was pretty cool. I do like the OP's approach where he uses a fair amount of statistics. You guys should give him more credit, I didn't see anything wrong with his methodology.
I think the question should be is 11pool-18hatch better than 14pool-hatch after you kill the pylon or engineering bay blocking your expo build, not is the 11pool-18hatch better than 14hatch-14pool build. Because lets be really honest that is what the 14hatch-14pool turns into if there is any delay in the hatch going down. Granted so does the 11p18h but you will see 2 lings a lot sooner to clear the natural expansion if there is something blocking it.
On December 19 2010 02:45 hydirl wrote: I think the question should be is 11pool-18hatch better than 14pool-hatch after you kill the pylon or engineering bay blocking your expo build, not is the 11pool-18hatch better than 14hatch-14pool build. Because lets be really honest that is what the 14hatch-14pool turns into if there is any delay in the hatch going down. Granted so does the 11p18h but you will see 2 lings a lot sooner to clear the natural expansion if there is something blocking it.
Shouldn't your first reaction to a blocked natural in many situations be to expand to the next closest available expansion location? Obviously, this is a bad idea in certain situations, but I thought that that was still a common response.
Jacobman - Interesting, I've never once done that (Now at 2200 Diamond). Not saying you are wrong by any means, I've just never done it as I didn't really think it was feasible in most scenarios. Is it not far too hard to hold your first expansion if not at your natural? I'd be interested in hearing more about this.
My typical response is to simply throw down my pool, continue to drone up, and get a pair or two of lings out asap to deal with the block (If blocked by a building) or just pull a drone or two to attack the probe/scv that is blocking.
On December 17 2010 03:15 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hey guys... Someone recently did a cast of my game against the 4gate and discussed the build. Check it out at this link and give him some subs!
jacobman has been running a thread which 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.