|
On December 09 2010 08:19 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 08:07 darmousseh wrote:On December 09 2010 07:53 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:47 darmousseh wrote:On December 09 2010 07:40 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:13 darmousseh wrote:
I don't understand why 1 basing is so bad for zerg. If you get bunker contained can you not just make a spine crawler to kill it? I thought this game was designed such that if players have the same number of expansions that they could be even with each other on the same number of bases.
For example, on 1 base, with a queen and 2 hatcheries you can produce units non-stop (unless you are going like zergling only). This is an investment of 450 minerals (150 for queen 300 for hatch). Whereas protoss needs 4 gateways on one base = 600 minerals while terran needs 4 rax (2 with tech labs) which is 700 minerals 50 gas.
Who decided that zerg need more expansions? I know this is true in scbw because of how the game worked, but is it neccesarily true in sc2? In sc2, you get minerals so quickly and expansions are worth so much (each base is like 2 bases in bw) that is it really neccesary to FE every time as zerg?
Have the designers ever said anything about zerg early expanding? I'm not saying FE is bad, but I am questioning if it is completely necessary. I've seen a lot of zerg play with a midish expansion (at around 28-30 food) who do very well. Are zerg units so bad that they always need to be ahead in supply in the entire game?
Now i know many players will be like "Economics dude, zerg need production and more minerals", but I want to know if the gains of getting an early expansion as opposed to a normal expansion outweigh the possible risks.
I guess another way of looking at it is, should protoss and terran always go 14 cc or 14 nexus as well? It doesn't matter how the game was designed, as anybody who is experienced and can play the game with half-decent macro will find out that Zerg will lose on equal bases as their units are simply not cost efficient enough to handle the likes of the more efficient mid-late game units of Protoss and Terran. What the designers intended or didn't intend makes absolutely no difference because even if they did "intend" that Zerg only need equal bases the reality of the matter determined via experience is that they need at least 1 more. The only people that ever suggest this are people that are unable to play the game with decent macro, so 2 hatch in base or at expo doesn't really make much of a difference as their macro is horrible anyway. Well, i obviously know from experience and watching plenty of games (and playing plenty of games) that this is mostly true, but i've seen many times where zerg on 1 base (2 hatches 1 queen) can easily beat a protoss FE or terran FE. Also we've seen how cost effective roaches are (especially against protoss early game) so I don't really buy the whole idea that zerg starts with a huge unit handicap. As it stands, terran has the best maco mechanics (able to gather minerals faster than any other race) so it would seem that terran should be the one that early expands to get a huge macro advantage. Idk, I think zerg is a very bizarre race that depends too much on map balance. What league are you in? Zerg can hold on 1 base for the early game no problem, its the mid-late game where they get absolutely raped by the cost efficient units like collosus, mass marine/tank/thor etc. In order to combat these units Zerg NEED a lot of gas for things like banelings/corruptor/muta. Just because a Zerg has won on 1 base doesn't mean its viable, as this was certainly due to the failures of his opponent. If the Terran or Protoss plays optimally, zerg will lose, period. I watched a game yesterday CatZ vs Huk, where Catz had his main and TWO GOLD BASES against Huk who was mined out at his main, and only had his nat. It a 3 bases vs 1 base (and two of those were Gold's for CatZ) and he still lost due to the massive cost effectiveness of the collosus, despite all the corruptors that CatZ made. If a Zerg wins on equal bases its because the Terran/Toss messed up hardcore, or went all-in and failed. 1700 diamond. In the midgame, zerg can make mid game units like infestors, corrupters, mutalisks, and hydras. Collosus are a tier 3 unit that costs a buttload (to get and to upgrade). Did catz make any tier 3 units to counter or did he stick with tier 1 stuff? Why don't we see zerg rushing to tier 3 on 2 base? but protoss and terran can do it? I'm not questioning the logic of getting more expansions, i'm questioning the design and philosophy of zerg as a whole. If protoss goes 6 gate it will lose badly to a rush to broodlords, and if protoss goes collosus it will beat a zerg t1/1.5 army. Teching is risky but pays big rewards, but it seems like zerg refuse to tech until they have to, whereas protoss tech to gain an advantage. This might explain why i like watching TLO play zerg, he likes to tech a lot faster than players like ret or idra, and huk loves to switch up his strategies (sometimes cannon rush, sometimes 4 gate, sometimes 1 gate expand). Is zerg so pinned down to a tiny tech tree that they have become predictable the entire game or are they simply playing the game the way they want to, instead of the most optimal way? Are you serious? If you really are 1700 diamond, which I don't believe btw due to the nature of your questions, then you would understand that Zerg don't have wallin or defensive abilities like Terran or Protoss, and teching too much is VERY dangerous, and suicidal vs a good opponent. Besides, as I said, zerg needs the GAS of at least 3 bases, preferably 4 before they can afford to go T3. T3 on 2 bases is lol, as you'll have like 2 ultra's when then come in with a massive army and roflstomp you. There is a reason why Zergs expand all over the place, and its not just because they think its fun or something, they absolutely need to in order to stay in the game. Zerg are designed to be a SWARM dude, and that means many bases.
You're really over-simplifying things. Zerg has cost-efficient units. Speedlings are ridiculously efficient in small food battles in an open field. Nothing else comes close. Watch a replay where Z holds off a 4-gate with zerglings and look at the army values before the fight. Zerg might have a quarter of the army cost and will still win. Roaches CRUSH Protoss gateway units for cost, especially when they have attack upgrades. Hydras on creep laugh at anything that doesn't have AoE damage. Z's T3 is also very efficient unless the opponent skews their composition.
Zerg units are highly efficient, but they need to be used well. Zerglings suck in chokes. Roach/hydra sucks at busting a front. Zerg is designed to be very efficient defensively at T1 and T2, but inefficient offensively until they reach T3. This property allows Zerg to drone hard up till the last second before pumping out just enough units to hold, but also prevents Zerg from auto-winning with early pushes. Zerg can design a timing to have an unreasonably large army at any given point by going all-in at that timing. If zerglings, roaches or hydras were actually efficient offensively, Zerg would be unstoppable in the early game.
|
Is your average zerg player so passive that they think any kind of pressure is all-in because they're not making drones?
Map presence and map control has a ton of value even if the units do no actual damage.
|
On December 09 2010 05:03 Hurkyl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 03:34 trypt wrote:The 11 pool opening has gotten a LOT of publicity, so much that I can almost guarentee that 95+% of the pro and semi-pro level zergs have talked about it, and 80%+ (if not more) have personally given it a try. The problem with this build is that you sacrifice early larvae to build that pool, even if you make it up "later", you will be way behind due to the lack of earlier economy. The pause in larvae can be eliminated entirely if you just 12 Pool instead. I was under the impression that the 11 overpool was just a couple second pause in larvae. I haven't actually tried it myself since I expect there to be very little difference from a 12 Pool, which I settled on long ago as being much better than any late Pool first build, since I judge saving 13-16 seconds on the Pool outweighs the extra 25 minerals I might get by delaying the Pool.
I will believe you on this, I think it's 7 seconds of larvae time that you lose. It may not be significant in the long run if allowed to drone, but if you're planning on getting zergling speed or banelings to counter instead of just zerglings without speed + hatch, with a 12pool build I don't think you would have enough minerals + gas to get queen + Zergling speed right when the pool finishes. Most 14/15 pool builds incorporate gas to get an economical bling or speedling build.
On December 09 2010 05:03 Hurkyl wrote:Show nested quote +The 11 pool opening has gotten a LOT of publicity, so much that I can almost guarentee that 95+% of the pro and semi-pro level zergs have talked about it, and 80%+ (if not more) have personally given it a try. Yes, it has the publicity, but I still see a lot of people dismiss it out of hand, on the "common knowledge" that middle pools cannot possibly be good for anything but a rush. Some of the comments regarding 2-rax have been along the lines of how very long it takes for the inject larvae to happen -- something that is a more significant problem of late pool builds. And Liquid`Ret's reply on this thread is comparing to a 15 Pool build.
Even if Ret is comparing to a 15pool build, I don't think you're looking far enough into the game. The game I envision is "ok, I make the terran skeptical about pushing by making some zerglings. The terran then continuously pumps marines while sitting in his base.
If I was playing Terran in this situation, I would take note of when zerg got his gas, then push about 25 seconds after the zerg starts mining gas. This would give enough time to make sure the zerg is not building a hatchery before zergling speed finishes (or before he gets banelings / roaches). If you don't see a hatchery at the natural, just pull back and feel good about yourself knowing your 2nd orbital is finished before his 2nd hatch is finished. From here probably do a stim timing push to poke and make sure the zerg isn't droning too hard.
Playing zerg in this situation is tough, it is nearly impossible to defend against 5-6 marines + 6 scv's with non speed zerglings off-creep without coming out behind on the engage. To defend this second hatch at that timing on-creep, it would need to be a hatch first build, queens cannot spread creep that fast (and you would sacrifice really early larvae even if it was possible)
|
On December 09 2010 08:39 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 08:19 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 08:07 darmousseh wrote:On December 09 2010 07:53 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:47 darmousseh wrote:On December 09 2010 07:40 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:13 darmousseh wrote:
I don't understand why 1 basing is so bad for zerg. If you get bunker contained can you not just make a spine crawler to kill it? I thought this game was designed such that if players have the same number of expansions that they could be even with each other on the same number of bases.
For example, on 1 base, with a queen and 2 hatcheries you can produce units non-stop (unless you are going like zergling only). This is an investment of 450 minerals (150 for queen 300 for hatch). Whereas protoss needs 4 gateways on one base = 600 minerals while terran needs 4 rax (2 with tech labs) which is 700 minerals 50 gas.
Who decided that zerg need more expansions? I know this is true in scbw because of how the game worked, but is it neccesarily true in sc2? In sc2, you get minerals so quickly and expansions are worth so much (each base is like 2 bases in bw) that is it really neccesary to FE every time as zerg?
Have the designers ever said anything about zerg early expanding? I'm not saying FE is bad, but I am questioning if it is completely necessary. I've seen a lot of zerg play with a midish expansion (at around 28-30 food) who do very well. Are zerg units so bad that they always need to be ahead in supply in the entire game?
Now i know many players will be like "Economics dude, zerg need production and more minerals", but I want to know if the gains of getting an early expansion as opposed to a normal expansion outweigh the possible risks.
I guess another way of looking at it is, should protoss and terran always go 14 cc or 14 nexus as well? It doesn't matter how the game was designed, as anybody who is experienced and can play the game with half-decent macro will find out that Zerg will lose on equal bases as their units are simply not cost efficient enough to handle the likes of the more efficient mid-late game units of Protoss and Terran. What the designers intended or didn't intend makes absolutely no difference because even if they did "intend" that Zerg only need equal bases the reality of the matter determined via experience is that they need at least 1 more. The only people that ever suggest this are people that are unable to play the game with decent macro, so 2 hatch in base or at expo doesn't really make much of a difference as their macro is horrible anyway. Well, i obviously know from experience and watching plenty of games (and playing plenty of games) that this is mostly true, but i've seen many times where zerg on 1 base (2 hatches 1 queen) can easily beat a protoss FE or terran FE. Also we've seen how cost effective roaches are (especially against protoss early game) so I don't really buy the whole idea that zerg starts with a huge unit handicap. As it stands, terran has the best maco mechanics (able to gather minerals faster than any other race) so it would seem that terran should be the one that early expands to get a huge macro advantage. Idk, I think zerg is a very bizarre race that depends too much on map balance. What league are you in? Zerg can hold on 1 base for the early game no problem, its the mid-late game where they get absolutely raped by the cost efficient units like collosus, mass marine/tank/thor etc. In order to combat these units Zerg NEED a lot of gas for things like banelings/corruptor/muta. Just because a Zerg has won on 1 base doesn't mean its viable, as this was certainly due to the failures of his opponent. If the Terran or Protoss plays optimally, zerg will lose, period. I watched a game yesterday CatZ vs Huk, where Catz had his main and TWO GOLD BASES against Huk who was mined out at his main, and only had his nat. It a 3 bases vs 1 base (and two of those were Gold's for CatZ) and he still lost due to the massive cost effectiveness of the collosus, despite all the corruptors that CatZ made. If a Zerg wins on equal bases its because the Terran/Toss messed up hardcore, or went all-in and failed. 1700 diamond. In the midgame, zerg can make mid game units like infestors, corrupters, mutalisks, and hydras. Collosus are a tier 3 unit that costs a buttload (to get and to upgrade). Did catz make any tier 3 units to counter or did he stick with tier 1 stuff? Why don't we see zerg rushing to tier 3 on 2 base? but protoss and terran can do it? I'm not questioning the logic of getting more expansions, i'm questioning the design and philosophy of zerg as a whole. If protoss goes 6 gate it will lose badly to a rush to broodlords, and if protoss goes collosus it will beat a zerg t1/1.5 army. Teching is risky but pays big rewards, but it seems like zerg refuse to tech until they have to, whereas protoss tech to gain an advantage. This might explain why i like watching TLO play zerg, he likes to tech a lot faster than players like ret or idra, and huk loves to switch up his strategies (sometimes cannon rush, sometimes 4 gate, sometimes 1 gate expand). Is zerg so pinned down to a tiny tech tree that they have become predictable the entire game or are they simply playing the game the way they want to, instead of the most optimal way? Are you serious? If you really are 1700 diamond, which I don't believe btw due to the nature of your questions, then you would understand that Zerg don't have wallin or defensive abilities like Terran or Protoss, and teching too much is VERY dangerous, and suicidal vs a good opponent. Besides, as I said, zerg needs the GAS of at least 3 bases, preferably 4 before they can afford to go T3. T3 on 2 bases is lol, as you'll have like 2 ultra's when then come in with a massive army and roflstomp you. There is a reason why Zergs expand all over the place, and its not just because they think its fun or something, they absolutely need to in order to stay in the game. Zerg are designed to be a SWARM dude, and that means many bases. You're really over-simplifying things. Zerg has cost-efficient units. Speedlings are ridiculously efficient in small food battles in an open field. Nothing else comes close. Watch a replay where Z holds off a 4-gate with zerglings and look at the army values before the fight. Zerg might have a quarter of the army cost and will still win. Roaches CRUSH Protoss gateway units for cost, especially when they have attack upgrades. Hydras on creep laugh at anything that doesn't have AoE damage. Z's T3 is also very efficient unless the opponent skews their composition. Zerg units are highly efficient, but they need to be used well. Zerglings suck in chokes. Roach/hydra sucks at busting a front. Zerg is designed to be very efficient defensively at T1 and T2, but inefficient offensively until they reach T3. This property allows Zerg to drone hard up till the last second before pumping out just enough units to hold, but also prevents Zerg from auto-winning with early pushes. Zerg can design a timing to have an unreasonably large army at any given point by going all-in at that timing. If zerglings, roaches or hydras were actually efficient offensively, Zerg would be unstoppable in the early game.
I didnt follow the 14 thread nested quote, but just going off this response. I think you might be the one guilty of over-simplifying things. Zerg CAN have cost-efficient units. And yes, speedlings are ridiculously good, in small food battles, in an open field. But thats is such a small percentage of what makes up an average game. And easily avoidable. Which is why you dont see 4 marines running around the map at a point in which zerg could be capable of having a decent number of speedlings. So yes, a zerg may win a battle with a smaller army size under IDEAL conditions. But the likelihood of a skill opponent allowing you to engage in those situations is small. Not only that, almost every race can crush a smaller army if they engage in ideal conditions. Thats like saying 2 marines and an scv or 2 can kill 50 speedlings in ideal conditions (behind a wall), doesnt necessarily translate into real gameplay.
Also T3 being highly efficient unless the opponent skews their comp is a bit of an oversimplifcation and understatement. As adding the handful of extra mauraders to destroy ultras is laughably easy. As are vikings, since the tech is almost 100% of the time available. Specially since T3 switches have been becoming more and more predictable lately.
|
Does anyone else think this whole thread can be used as a basis for why the top players should have threads/a sub-forum dedicated to their own discussion?
So far, we've had 9 pages dissecting a few sentences written by Ret, and because of the nature of this discussion, it's unlikely that he's going to elaborate on his remarks.
Many of the posters in this thread have already conceded this point, but again - Ret, Idra, etc. on an entirely different plateau from the rest of us. The way the game is perceived in terms of balance is probably very different from the way we play it, to the way they play it. You see this reflected in the match-up breakdowns that Blizzard posted before, too.
|
On December 09 2010 08:07 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 07:53 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:47 darmousseh wrote:On December 09 2010 07:40 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:13 darmousseh wrote:
I don't understand why 1 basing is so bad for zerg. If you get bunker contained can you not just make a spine crawler to kill it? I thought this game was designed such that if players have the same number of expansions that they could be even with each other on the same number of bases.
For example, on 1 base, with a queen and 2 hatcheries you can produce units non-stop (unless you are going like zergling only). This is an investment of 450 minerals (150 for queen 300 for hatch). Whereas protoss needs 4 gateways on one base = 600 minerals while terran needs 4 rax (2 with tech labs) which is 700 minerals 50 gas.
Who decided that zerg need more expansions? I know this is true in scbw because of how the game worked, but is it neccesarily true in sc2? In sc2, you get minerals so quickly and expansions are worth so much (each base is like 2 bases in bw) that is it really neccesary to FE every time as zerg?
Have the designers ever said anything about zerg early expanding? I'm not saying FE is bad, but I am questioning if it is completely necessary. I've seen a lot of zerg play with a midish expansion (at around 28-30 food) who do very well. Are zerg units so bad that they always need to be ahead in supply in the entire game?
Now i know many players will be like "Economics dude, zerg need production and more minerals", but I want to know if the gains of getting an early expansion as opposed to a normal expansion outweigh the possible risks.
I guess another way of looking at it is, should protoss and terran always go 14 cc or 14 nexus as well? It doesn't matter how the game was designed, as anybody who is experienced and can play the game with half-decent macro will find out that Zerg will lose on equal bases as their units are simply not cost efficient enough to handle the likes of the more efficient mid-late game units of Protoss and Terran. What the designers intended or didn't intend makes absolutely no difference because even if they did "intend" that Zerg only need equal bases the reality of the matter determined via experience is that they need at least 1 more. The only people that ever suggest this are people that are unable to play the game with decent macro, so 2 hatch in base or at expo doesn't really make much of a difference as their macro is horrible anyway. Well, i obviously know from experience and watching plenty of games (and playing plenty of games) that this is mostly true, but i've seen many times where zerg on 1 base (2 hatches 1 queen) can easily beat a protoss FE or terran FE. Also we've seen how cost effective roaches are (especially against protoss early game) so I don't really buy the whole idea that zerg starts with a huge unit handicap. As it stands, terran has the best maco mechanics (able to gather minerals faster than any other race) so it would seem that terran should be the one that early expands to get a huge macro advantage. Idk, I think zerg is a very bizarre race that depends too much on map balance. What league are you in? Zerg can hold on 1 base for the early game no problem, its the mid-late game where they get absolutely raped by the cost efficient units like collosus, mass marine/tank/thor etc. In order to combat these units Zerg NEED a lot of gas for things like banelings/corruptor/muta. Just because a Zerg has won on 1 base doesn't mean its viable, as this was certainly due to the failures of his opponent. If the Terran or Protoss plays optimally, zerg will lose, period. I watched a game yesterday CatZ vs Huk, where Catz had his main and TWO GOLD BASES against Huk who was mined out at his main, and only had his nat. It a 3 bases vs 1 base (and two of those were Gold's for CatZ) and he still lost due to the massive cost effectiveness of the collosus, despite all the corruptors that CatZ made. If a Zerg wins on equal bases its because the Terran/Toss messed up hardcore, or went all-in and failed. 1700 diamond. In the midgame, zerg can make mid game units like infestors, corrupters, mutalisks, and hydras. Collosus are a tier 3 unit that costs a buttload (to get and to upgrade). Did catz make any tier 3 units to counter or did he stick with tier 1 stuff? Why don't we see zerg rushing to tier 3 on 2 base? but protoss and terran can do it? I'm not questioning the logic of getting more expansions, i'm questioning the design and philosophy of zerg as a whole. If protoss goes 6 gate it will lose badly to a rush to broodlords, and if protoss goes collosus it will beat a zerg t1/1.5 army. Teching is risky but pays big rewards, but it seems like zerg refuse to tech until they have to, whereas protoss tech to gain an advantage. This might explain why i like watching TLO play zerg, he likes to tech a lot faster than players like ret or idra, and huk loves to switch up his strategies (sometimes cannon rush, sometimes 4 gate, sometimes 1 gate expand). Is zerg so pinned down to a tiny tech tree that they have become predictable the entire game or are they simply playing the game the way they want to, instead of the most optimal way?
lol i bet you think that terran can go BCs off 2 base if the P goes 6 gate too :S the catz vs huk game was basically catz going allin to kill huk for like 20 minutes, mining pretty much only 1 gold base at a time vs huks 1/2 bases, he only had like 1 or 2 drones on minerals in his main, and he got the 2nd gold right before the 1st one mined out, i think that catz could've won if not for a few mistakes, like suiciding the overlords that were spewing creep, and not having more overlords all over the place so that he had a creep highway, or just making roach instead of hydraling probably would have given him the win ^_^
|
tbh the OP is really a statement rather than an opinion and quite an accurate one at that. hatch first is the only option, however, if you do it right, a 7 roach rush->expo->ling spd->tech switch slings. works pretty well. assuming 2rax or 111 transition you can smash their army, snipe a sup depot and maybe a rax too, not to mention you should kill 5-10scvs depending how out of position the terran is. Furthermore, the terran will most likely counter atk in about 5min (around 10min mark), which can easily be held off w/ purely slings which u can pump off 2hatch. For info on how to execute a 7RR correctly, PM me on the boards.
|
On December 07 2010 17:49 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Here's the sentiment I'm hearing around the forum: zerg have to figure out how to deal with a shitload of different harass and push, and if he survives to mid game zerg is unstoppable. Why don't we just stop the game at mid game them. Just have a timer that announce zerg as winner if he's alive at 20 minutes. Saves time!
misconceptions by total noob terrans,
1 zerg in unstoppable in the mid game.
2 terrans cannot macro at the same pace as a zerg can.
maybe you should play more befor you post stupid shit.
|
On December 09 2010 09:12 my0s wrote:
I didnt follow the 14 thread nested quote, but just going off this response. I think you might be the one guilty of over-simplifying things. Zerg CAN have cost-efficient units. And yes, speedlings are ridiculously good, in small food battles, in an open field. But thats is such a small percentage of what makes up an average game. And easily avoidable. Which is why you dont see 4 marines running around the map at a point in which zerg could be capable of having a decent number of speedlings. So yes, a zerg may win a battle with a smaller army size under IDEAL conditions. But the likelihood of a skill opponent allowing you to engage in those situations is small. Not only that, almost every race can crush a smaller army if they engage in ideal conditions. Thats like saying 2 marines and an scv or 2 can kill 50 speedlings in ideal conditions (behind a wall), doesnt necessarily translate into real gameplay.
You make it sound like finding an area on a map where a small zergling army can get a decent surround is a once-in-a-lifetime event. These aren't really exacting conditions, anyone with any micro skills at all should be able to arrange it.
|
On December 09 2010 09:40 silloh wrote:
Does anyone else think this whole thread can be used as a basis for why the top players should have threads/a sub-forum dedicated to their own discussion?
So far, we've had 9 pages dissecting a few sentences written by Ret, and because of the nature of this discussion, it's unlikely that he's going to elaborate on his remarks.
Many of the posters in this thread have already conceded this point, but again - Ret, Idra, etc. on an entirely different plateau from the rest of us. The way the game is perceived in terms of balance is probably very different from the way we play it, to the way they play it. You see this reflected in the match-up breakdowns that Blizzard posted before, too.
No, I am not sure if you have looked through all 9 pages of this thread I just finished a few seconds ago. There are posts in here by recognizable people Morrow, Liquid Ret, and Root.Drewbie. Only problem I see is that Ret actually elaborated on his Quote in the OP but its gone pretty much under the radar because people are engaging in there thread battles with other posters they disagree with instead replying to what Ret had to say. I have seen 2 people bring up what Ret has said. (Ret Replies on Page 6)
There is alot of bickering in here but its usually good arguments. If you get past the insults
On topic I will say that though Ret is quoted in the OP and replies on page 6 as some said earlier he is saying 15 hatch and all the arguements I keep seeing in here are for 14 hatch the general Zerg build. So I am a bit confused if Ret is using something completely different. So I guess that is where he is going 14 hatch otherwise I am not to sure what everyone is fighting over. All I can conclude is that Ret is either 15 hatch cross or 14 hatch close because he feels that either way hatch first is better for defense and econ. Basically hatch first is the safest build you can do as Zerg given limited information and variety of responses Terran can do. In the end hatch first is the best all-around and it sounds like many other people agree. (correct me if I am wrong from reading the OP and Rets Reply on Page 6)
The other side of the coin is people "saying try another build" try pool first try 11 pool 18 hatch. It seems like there a few people that have tested it themselves and swear by it. I think what keeps getting lost when people are arguing FOR 11pool 18 hatch is someone said it is just a shell and not specific to building things not econ, such as spines or zerglings. So the thread that is about the 11 pool 18 hatch doesn't have every scenario or every situation fully fleshed out because it is just that a shell the author of that thread even ask for results back based on people experience but the 11 pool 18 hatch thread testing is specifically economic with in the OP of THAT thread.(correct me if I am wrong here also anyone that is for 11 pool 18 hatch)
I can't say which would be better I don't play zerg at all from reading the entire thread so far I will say I have learned alot about how zergs work. Just based on my opinion. I think it is reasonable to say that Ret and Idra may have not tested 11 pool 18 hatch as outlined in that thread. It's not being disrespectful it's just being reasonable to say just that. Even Rets Reply on page 6 doesn't mention anything dealing with any type of pool first build at all or at least 11 pool 18 hatch specifically which is what many people are specifically referring to that they try.
The amount of scrutiny that you receive on TL to even come up with a build that is solid and new is nothing to really scoff at. I think the amount of testing the OP to show the slight economical disadvantage the 11 pool 18 hatch build provides is worth a note. Doesn't look like it was tested hardcore against 2 rax but its left to the players to decide which is why the author of the 11 pool 18 hatch Post asks for feedback
I could be completely wrong in my assessment of this entire thread so far. I have enjoyed the reading though.
EDIT: Cleaned up
|
Nestea gave an interview after RO8 with TSL_Rain and he was also asked about the counter to 2-rax pressure. His answer was identical to that of Ret's and Idra's: Hatchery-first.
I also remember Fruitdealer saying similar thing some time ago about early marine pressure. So that makes 4 of the top Zergs around the world sharing the same view. (Idra, Ret, Nestea, Fruitdealer)
|
On December 09 2010 09:02 trypt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 05:03 Hurkyl wrote:On December 09 2010 03:34 trypt wrote:The 11 pool opening has gotten a LOT of publicity, so much that I can almost guarentee that 95+% of the pro and semi-pro level zergs have talked about it, and 80%+ (if not more) have personally given it a try. The problem with this build is that you sacrifice early larvae to build that pool, even if you make it up "later", you will be way behind due to the lack of earlier economy. The pause in larvae can be eliminated entirely if you just 12 Pool instead. I was under the impression that the 11 overpool was just a couple second pause in larvae. I haven't actually tried it myself since I expect there to be very little difference from a 12 Pool, which I settled on long ago as being much better than any late Pool first build, since I judge saving 13-16 seconds on the Pool outweighs the extra 25 minerals I might get by delaying the Pool. I will believe you on this, I think it's 7 seconds of larvae time that you lose. It may not be significant in the long run if allowed to drone, but if you're planning on getting zergling speed or banelings to counter instead of just zerglings without speed + hatch, with a 12pool build I don't think you would have enough minerals + gas to get queen + Zergling speed right when the pool finishes. Most 14/15 pool builds incorporate gas to get an economical bling or speedling build.
Seven second pause for 11 overpool? That's a lot more than I thought it would be; I wonder if anyone in that thread ever really tried to optimize a 12 Pool FE. Anyways....
For gaspool, 13 gas 12 pool is late enough that you can still get Queen + Metabolic boost right as the spawning pool finishes and still not waste any larvae.
On the other hand, while 12 pool 12 gas can't get Metabolic Boost when the pool finishes, it does get it a couple seconds earlier than a 15 gas 14 pool build.
These numbers are from the build order calculator -- I think it accurate enough for a comparison like this. (But I can test in game if you want to see those numbers)
13 gaspool - Pool @ 2:47 - Boost @ 4:37 - 231 minerals @ 3:30
12 pool 12 gas - Pool @ 2:36 - Boost @ 4:54 - 246 minerals @ 3:30
15 gaspool - Pool @ 2:56 - Boost @ 4:58 - 289 minerals @ 3:30
(I went for 16 Drones in each of these tests)
And any of these could afford a FE at 19 or 20 food, if you wanted to try for that.
Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 05:03 Hurkyl wrote:The 11 pool opening has gotten a LOT of publicity, so much that I can almost guarentee that 95+% of the pro and semi-pro level zergs have talked about it, and 80%+ (if not more) have personally given it a try. Yes, it has the publicity, but I still see a lot of people dismiss it out of hand, on the "common knowledge" that middle pools cannot possibly be good for anything but a rush. Some of the comments regarding 2-rax have been along the lines of how very long it takes for the inject larvae to happen -- something that is a more significant problem of late pool builds. And Liquid`Ret's reply on this thread is comparing to a 15 Pool build. Even if Ret is comparing to a 15pool build, I don't think you're looking far enough into the game. The game I envision is "ok, I make the terran skeptical about pushing by making some zerglings. The terran then continuously pumps marines while sitting in his base. If I was playing Terran in this situation, I would take note of when zerg got his gas, then push about 25 seconds after the zerg starts mining gas. This would give enough time to make sure the zerg is not building a hatchery before zergling speed finishes (or before he gets banelings / roaches). If you don't see a hatchery at the natural, just pull back and feel good about yourself knowing your 2nd orbital is finished before his 2nd hatch is finished. From here probably do a stim timing push to poke and make sure the zerg isn't droning too hard. Playing zerg in this situation is tough, it is nearly impossible to defend against 5-6 marines + 6 scv's with non speed zerglings off-creep without coming out behind on the engage. To defend this second hatch at that timing on-creep, it would need to be a hatch first build, queens cannot spread creep that fast (and you would sacrifice really early larvae even if it was possible)
I want point out that "you can't defend a FE unless you have creep or speedlings" is a very different objection than things like "15 pool hurts your economy" or "1 hatch has so few larvae".
|
My impression (from Idra/Ret public assertions) is that bunker rushes invalidate late Pool --> Hatch builds, so the options are early Pool-->Hatch, one-base tech, or Hatch --> Pool. One-base tech builds are unpopular (and probably weak, though not so weak as folks assume) so it's either early Pool (11 Overpool is seemingly the strongest such build) or Hatch-first.
|
The reason why terran go 2 rax is the hatch first, a smart terran can't go anything else because he would be behind 100% of the time in the mid game. It's a reactionnary build, cause the potential of the hatch first macro without pressure is really scary. Terran prefer to tech up if they have the choice because in the mid game they can't defeat you with pure bio (except FoxeR:p), i really think good terrans doesn't go blindly 2 rax every game, if they see hatch first they go pressure with 2rax and then expand or all in, if you pool first they can simply tech up harass/control map with hellion/banshee, expand normally and be fine in the mid game, then they have to make something happen with a timing push/deny a third, harass etc.
The 2 rax opener is purely a response to the hatch first nothing else, they can't do anything else against this build.All others builds against hatch first are bad (like hellion drop, banshee, etc.) because you are behind in the mid game if you don't do significant damage. And you can't keep up against a hatch first as a terran just with pure macro you have to hard pressure a zerg if you don't want to be behind in the mid game.
Now maybe Terrans has realised that the 2 rax is also strong against pool first, i don't know (i'm fine against that with pool first when they don't all in). But at the beginning it was a reactionnary build against the hatch first, nothing else.
|
On December 09 2010 18:19 usethis2 wrote:
Nestea gave an interview after RO8 with TSL_Rain and he was also asked about the counter to 2-rax pressure. His answer was identical to that of Ret's and Idra's: Hatchery-first.
I also remember Fruitdealer saying similar thing some time ago about early marine pressure. So that makes 4 of the top Zergs around the world sharing the same view. (Idra, Ret, Nestea, Fruitdealer)
What do they all have in common, they are out of the tourney. LoL...so obviously their main assumption is incorrect.
|
On December 09 2010 19:26 JreL209 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 18:19 usethis2 wrote:
Nestea gave an interview after RO8 with TSL_Rain and he was also asked about the counter to 2-rax pressure. His answer was identical to that of Ret's and Idra's: Hatchery-first.
I also remember Fruitdealer saying similar thing some time ago about early marine pressure. So that makes 4 of the top Zergs around the world sharing the same view. (Idra, Ret, Nestea, Fruitdealer) What do they all have in common, they are out of the tourney. LoL...so obviously their main assumption is incorrect.
Not sure whether you're joking or trying to be cute.
|
On December 08 2010 20:17 Liquid`Ret wrote:
Let me first say this, I feel like it is entirely possible to stop 2 rax allins, even when they send all their scvs, on most maps with 15 hatch opening. Exceptions are : LT close pos, Meta close pos, steppes of war.
So there is very little incentive for anyone to try different builds that give you less economy, and later creep to put a spine down at your natural base.
a speedling opening build is probably safer against a standard 2 rax on most maps, when the 2 rax is executed in standard fashion, however, when you are close position with the terran, the 2 rax constant marines reinforces so fast, combined with the fact that slow zerglings are easily outmicro'ed by marines, and that the speed upgrade takes FOREVER; makes me believe that even when you are close position with the terran your best bet is to hatch first, dance your drone/ling around, plant a spine, and defend that way. This is because of the various sets of follow-ups terran can do, which will require you to have some sort of economy to deal with. They can put down a CC; They can put down 4 rax; They can put down a factory and do some sort of weird marine hellion allin follow-up.
There are so many transitions for terrans and you wont be able to scout them; Vs 4 rax you ideally want banelings, vs 2 rax cc you want a lot of drones to be able to keep up in an economic game, vs hellion followups you ideally want some roaches, vs banshees you need a lair and a bunch of queens...
The problem is you can't scout, and on close position, the transition comes soooo fast, that unless you guess correctly there is almost no way to deal with it except getting lucky and guessing right. This becomes especially true when you opened speedling. You still have to send down 3 drones with your first set of lings to pretend being bunker walled off, then you can still get pushed back all the time by constant 2 rax reinforcements because it takes so long for speed to finish. By that time, terran couldve transitioned into any of the earlier mentioned units and if he's good, you will have no idea about which one. 15 pool speed hurts your economy so bad that the whole guessing thing becomes especially true with this opening, there is simply no way for you to have a roach warren, a lair, a bunch of queens, a baneling nest in time to deal with whatever terran can do to you. This is why I prefer hatch first; If your drone/ling micro is rock solid and your opponent makes a mistake; you might even end up ahead. Sometimes you end up even, and sometimes you end up behind. I prefer this as opposed to being behind and left guessing about what terran is doing in every single game because of my opening. Yeah, we lose some games to scv/marine allins, but it's acceptable for us, on these positions/maps that are horrible for zerg to begin with.
Imo maps with close position should be removed from the game. If terran is smart then zerg should rarely be able to win, and if they do then only cause they guessed right, whoop di doo. The reason IdrA won on steppes vs Mvp is cause MVP is so naive and thinks hes far superior to Idra and he placed a CC right under Idra's overlord and played completly standard. Idra didn't even have to guess, he knew what was coming a week b4 the series even started, and outplayed mvp in a standard game on steppes.
Great post, thank you! 
|
The problem with an in-base Hatchery:
1 Hatchery with a Queen produces an average of 10 larva per minute. To produce 1 supply units, 1/9th of these larva must be Overlords (1.11), leaving 8.89 larva for units. This costs 110 for Overlords, and 444.5 for units. In other words, to support 1 Hatchery + Queen in production, you require 554.5 minerals per minute. I can't check in game at the moment, but using Liquidpedia's reported mining rates, this requires approximately 13 Drones, which seems to be in the ballpark. Intuitively, 2 Hatcheries + 2 Queens would require 1109 minerals per minute. The problem is, this would require 138.625 minerals per patch per minute, which is impossible for one base due to the way Drone saturation works. Liquidpedia reports about 102 per minute per patch for 3 Drones.
Now, you could simply not produce the second Queen. Since a Queen is 60% of the production of one of your hatcheries, you'd cut your mineral requirement by 30%, down to 96.87, which is just barely sustainable. You'd have to cut production to expand or tech.
Of course, because of costs, a Queen is a significantly more efficient investment in terms of production capacity - exactly 3 times more efficient, to be accurate. So, you'd really like to be able to afford the production capacity of a Queen if you're going to put down a Hatchery.
This is part of the reason why getting an expansion is so important for Zerg - you can support production off of a second Hatchery with a Queen, which is much more cost efficient to build, and you've got resources to do things like tech, expand, or make units that aren't Zerglings and Drones. Just speaking in general terms, you're looking at something like 1008 resources per minute from 24 Drones on 16 mineral patches, as opposed to 816 from 24 Drones on 8 mineral patches, which is a huge advantage anyway.
As a note, in terms of just straight production, you should be able to almost (but not quite) support constant production from 3 Hatcheries with Queens off of 2 saturated mining bases if you're macroing perfectly (still speaking in terms of 1 supply, 50 mineral units). If you went in-base hatch into expansion, you'd really need to have a third before you stabilized in terms of being able to have extra resources for further expansions, teching, producing 2-supply units, etc. The whole point of the current metagame is that Zerg stabilizes on 2 bases very quickly. I'm not sure Zerg can wait till a third base to stabilize with the current metagame.
|
On December 09 2010 18:19 usethis2 wrote:
So that makes 4 of the top Zergs around the world sharing the same view. (Idra, Ret, Nestea, Fruitdealer)
I think it is important to give the experts the respect they deserve, and value their opinions highly. But we cannot treat everything they say as gospel (*). The wrong thing to do is to evoke the appeal to authority fallacy. Just because the pros are much better than everyone else, it doesn't mean they are always right about everything.
The 11overpool template is very eco when only building drones. IMO, it is balanced on a knife's edge, with just enough minerals to keep drones popping, which mines enough minerals for the next wave of drones, etc. If lings/spines are built at any time, there won't be enough new drones to mine enough for some future set of larva. Building lings/spines doesn't affect each build equally. 11overpool takes a small eco hit very early to rush the pool/queen. It makes up this eco hit by having extra larva quickly and just enough minerals to fully use them, unless lings/spines are built. Other builds might be better balanced to have just enough larva/minerals including lings/spines.
What really needs to happen is to test an 11overpool build vs 2 rax. When do lings/spines come out? How effective is this vs 14/15 hatch?
(*) At one time, the top Zergs agreed that Thor hard countered Mutas. Then someone invented the magic box.
|
On December 07 2010 17:18 sixghost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 17:08 TexSC wrote:On December 07 2010 17:01 Gotmog wrote:
Jinro agrees as well.
And i think Artosis would agree now as well, even though he was against it at the start of GSL (so was idra i believe) It is quite amazing how quickly Artosis went from "If you went hatch first and they want to kill it, they can" to "if you place a spine crawler or two, with good ling control, you can fend it off every time." But yes, I agree, hatch first is what zergs have to do. They are a macro race, period. Have you been listening to different casts? Artosis has been saying that it's suicide until very recently. He took a really long time to even acknowledge hatch first as even being potentially safe.
Yeah, he really doesn't like to admit he's wrong (hard headed)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
