[H] Defending against 2rax play. - Page 2

On December 16 2010 01:25 telfire wrote:


Well, there are no other ways if the T micros correctly. And even with 14 hatch you have to micro much much better than T. But the general consensus among pros is that you simply won't have enough larva to defend unless you 14 hatch, it's a straight up build order loss.

On December 16 2010 01:20 mlbrandow wrote:
Judging from the replays you posted, you are definitely a better zerg player than I am, and so I hope you take this advice well:


make a roach warren and stop trying to maintain this delusion that fast expanding is better than 1-basing in every possible situation.

I watched 3 replays and saw a lot of poor decision-making that I would never do, and I am by no means an expert player.

Slow banelings vs. stimmed marines and marauders, and forcing an expansion when you see 5-10 SCVs accompanying a rush is just really poor teching.

You force muta/bane/ling against a guy who 1-bases with predominantly marine production.


In one replay your opponent said "5/7RR crushes this" and he's absolutely right. You can 7RR at 4:45 with 15 drones and it would be a cost win every time.

Your unreasonable commitment to fast expanding, forcing ling/bling/muta and your refusal to make an extra queen for transfuse and creep spread are what doom you consistently in these games.


When I play terran, I usually stick to a lot of marine heavy aggression, and the reason it works is because many players simply fail to adapt. You tech because you feel like you should, but almost every lair/hive unit is hard countered by stimmed marines.


Again, just make a roach warren. It's completely okay to one-base. Those bunkers are by no means invincible. And ESPECIALLY if you have an expansion up, why do you need to force aggression ON what is a failed bunker push (because of the creep).




Conclusion: You're trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. You're forcing a certain tech tree and an expansion when you know exactly that your opponent is committing to 1-base play, forever giving him the army advantage. You lose consistently because of this, and instead of changing your operating condition (must maximize personal economy), you force yourself into what is really a no-win situation.

You should be aware that denying your opponent's economy is as good or better than maximizing your own economy. Start thinking by "how can I earn and maintain an economic advantage over my opponent?" The answer, believe it or not, does not always reside in fast expanding and making the smallest possible army.

P.S. - While I disagree with a lot of what you post, I appreciate the high value that such threads as these hold in this forum and community. If more people operated their threads in this way, the world would be a better place! Thanks again for all your time and effort in this and other discussion threads.

On December 15 2010 05:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:Note: Please don't post here criticizing the players abilities or the map chosen, etc. We are just playing some practice games, not having a theorycraft debate.

REPLAYS:
[spoiler]
lGy Series: lGy is an extremely skilled 2800+ Terran. I was determined to defend 14Hatch against his 2rax all-in, but I didn't succeed.
Results: 14 Hatch 0-6