EPT
[G] Spanishiwa's No Gas FE ZvX - Page 15
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
| ||
|
puttputt
Canada240 Posts
| ||
|
Sixes
Canada1123 Posts
1. To learn zerg the best way (and I think most pros agree with this) is to learn how to macro well first (unlike toss where a solid 4 gate is valid even in pro games, zerg doesn't have a strong early hit where good micro becomes more useful than good macro). This build forces good macro and overlord/drone timings so at the very least it is good as a learning build. 2. Anyone who already has great macro (really just the pros or the very best ladder people) has multiple builds. For ZvP and ZvT this is a greedy opener which seems to stop a lot of 1-2 base all ins (4 gates are common at all levels) as well as being relatively greedy (so probably not terribly behind in a macro race). I don't see why this build couldn't be an option against certain opponents 3. As Darkforce pointed out there are several weaknesses to this build. I believe he said that the opponent can deny creep spread by being aggressive, the opponent can take a fast third and the opponent has map control (which is really what leads to the other two). As I see it though the opponent is going to have trouble going for fast detection and a decent army (to control the map and deny creep) at the same time as he takes a super fast third. It seems to me like the opponent would give back map control by taking a fast third or they have map control and are behind on economy which isn't all that bad ... | ||
|
selerius
2 Posts
For me, I like this build. It has something that - what I think - Z play is lacking. I mean the fact that my play is than mainly B/O based (with exceptions obv of rushes/attacks etc etc). When i.e. Toss player comes to a play with Z, toss has already a strategy, and Zs strategy is to figure out what hes planning to do (yea yea, im cpt obv ^^ )But still. It feels to me like quite a fresh breeze. Lets think more about possible adjustments rather than just pros and cons. | ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
On April 07 2011 09:40 Lobotomist wrote: @Spanishwa: Could you discuss the rational behind going 16 hatch 15 pool instead of 15 hatch 14 pool or 14 hatch 14 pool? is 16/15 just a bit more economical, or does it have specific timings that require the extra drone? I was hoping Spanishiwa would answer this post specifically, but it's been demonstrated pretty conclusively through both repeated human testing as well as AI-automated testing that 14h15p and 15h14p are the best economic openings out there. Both builds will have better resource and larva output that any later hatchery (or earlier hatch, obviously). As for picking between the two, they're basically equivalent, with 15h having a very small resource advantage (20-ish minerals), and 14h having a very small larva advantage (less than one). So unless there are specific timings (which seems relatively unlikely), it would be better to hatch sooner. | ||
|
HTODethklok
United States221 Posts
On April 09 2011 06:05 Skrag wrote: I was hoping Spanishiwa would answer this post specifically, but it's been demonstrated pretty conclusively through both repeated human testing as well as AI-automated testing that 14h15p and 15h14p are the best economic openings out there. Both builds will have better resource and larva output that any later hatchery (or earlier hatch, obviously). As for picking between the two, they're basically equivalent, with 15h having a very small resource advantage (20-ish minerals), and 14h having a very small larva advantage (less than one). So unless there are specific timings (which seems relatively unlikely), it would be better to hatch sooner. Ive seen him doing 13 hatch 15 pool in his stream lately. As far as I know 13 hatch 15 pool is supposed to be the most economical opening zerg can do. Also the hatch usually goes down before and scouts get to your base so the chances for a block to happen are minimal. | ||
|
regulator_mk
United States127 Posts
On April 09 2011 06:05 Skrag wrote: I was hoping Spanishiwa would answer this post specifically, but it's been demonstrated pretty conclusively through both repeated human testing as well as AI-automated testing that 14h15p and 15h14p are the best economic openings out there. Both builds will have better resource and larva output that any later hatchery (or earlier hatch, obviously). As for picking between the two, they're basically equivalent, with 15h having a very small resource advantage (20-ish minerals), and 14h having a very small larva advantage (less than one). So unless there are specific timings (which seems relatively unlikely), it would be better to hatch sooner. 16 hatch 15 pool gets the pool down sooner than 14 hatch 15 pool since you have the drone that makes the hatch mining longer before he makes the hatch. | ||
|
sLayed
United States11 Posts
great build, great post bro. thanks a ton. 22-3 streak top masters since i read this. fits perfectly into what i wanted to do with z! | ||
|
PiousMartyr
Canada176 Posts
On April 09 2011 06:05 Skrag wrote: I was hoping Spanishiwa would answer this post specifically, but it's been demonstrated pretty conclusively through both repeated human testing as well as AI-automated testing that 14h15p and 15h14p are the best economic openings out there. Both builds will have better resource and larva output that any later hatchery (or earlier hatch, obviously). As for picking between the two, they're basically equivalent, with 15h having a very small resource advantage (20-ish minerals), and 14h having a very small larva advantage (less than one). So unless there are specific timings (which seems relatively unlikely), it would be better to hatch sooner. He already answered this in the OP. In the second and third paragraphs he says he now does 13H/15P because it's more economic, and that he no longer does 16H/15P. On March 31 2011 11:03 Spanishiwa wrote: EDIT: Replays are up, request more if you want to see more. Finding pictures was such a pain though, so I'm gonna be lazy and put that off for awhile. The replays also show the old 16 hatch/15 pool build order that was advocated in this thread. I now prefer 13h/15p. The concept is the same, just the timings are a little different (13h/15p is slightly faster and more economical, so it's just better overall). ALSO: Upon experimentation I've found to favor 13 hatchery 15 spawning pool over the 16 hatchery 15 spawning pool referenced in the build below. This is a personal preference (although there are figures which also suggest that 13h/15p is the best hatch first opener) and to copy my build all you'd need to do is open 13h/15p, hit the overlord timings, and proceed as usual. Click here for more information. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
Whenever I scout hatch first I immediately go over and look for their vespene timing. If I see they are delaying vespene for too long (speedlings will finish at 6 minutes or later) I will probably opt for a double stalker opening. The thing about the double stalker opening is I can follow my initial two stalkers up with two more, and then expand, or expand behind the first two. If I see such a late gas as Spanishawa's I'm going to have four very fast stalkers at the zerg's natural. A zerg player in this situation would need at least 2 spine crawlers to defend, and even then I can run up the ramp with my stalkers. You're going to have to make a ton of lings which will never be able to kill a stalker, and I get up a pretty fast expansion. All those lings, spines, and queens you made is going to result in even worker counts AT LEAST. Not to mention you'll have late tech and no map control. In the replay I saw of kcdc he was playing very risky with his forward aggression so early, so I think he lost because of bad play. If you watch the probe to drone comparisons he forced you to only have a 3-5 drone lead throughout the early to mid game, and you got ahead due to decisions that aren't caused by your build or style of play. Imagine if instead of pressuring you with a zealot/stalker there were two very fast stalkers followed by two more. And once seeing you sink so many minerals into spines/lines/queens I know that you can't be offensive with anything but a lot of ling/banelings meaning I'm free to do nearly anything I want. Looks to me like this opening against Protoss will only work if the Protoss doesn't know how to react. | ||
|
Kogut
United States147 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Sure, you didn't say it's terrible, but you may as well have. | ||
|
SC2TheDroid
United States54 Posts
Feedback queens and infestors with a storm here or there and morph archons vs lings with gateway unit support = win? I can see this being a effective strategy vs your typical protoss going for those money collosus + void ray, this is a great counter to that. If I personally see more than 5-6 queens am going straight into ht to deal with lings/muta/queen/infestor. Edit: The other natural challenge here is you are confining yourself to 2 base and giving map controll for quite a long time to the protoss. If I 4 gated and got stopped by mass queens and scouted no gas I would naturally expand asap and transition into HT + whatever. I don't see zerg doing very well with lings and queens and infestor vs high temps. | ||
|
mizak
Canada27 Posts
On April 09 2011 07:04 Kogut wrote: I'd tune into a stream where the high-end naysayers of this build faced off against Spanish, even if they knew it was coming. I was hanging out on the stream last night seeing the ladder randoms try and fend it off, but I'd love to see the pros show us just how terrible this build really is. + Show Spoiler + Sure, you didn't say it's terrible, but you may as well have. They're just expressing their opinions, which have proven to be reliable hence the blue highlighting. I'm sure spanishwa is fine with discussion from high level players. I like their input, it gives more information on the build. | ||
|
SC2TheDroid
United States54 Posts
On April 08 2011 17:09 nyc863 wrote: Adebisi just casted this build vs onecruncher and wow what an awesome way to win Yea this is the game I just watched. How you guys think this game would have ended if he immediately transitioned into HT instead of collosus/void ray? ^^ | ||
|
B34ST
United Kingdom150 Posts
They FE as well, except they get the gas, vs Zerg, would it be worth while delaying the queens a lil bit getting your gas and getting a few roaches out to fend of this early pressure? There was a no queen FE roach build, maybe using a hint of that with this? I will find the replay and update this with the replay (I am positive sc2gears saved it). | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
On April 09 2011 06:50 CecilSunkure wrote: I read through this topic and decided that this build isn't going to work against a decent Protoss. Whenever I scout hatch first I immediately go over and look for their vespene timing. If I see they are delaying vespene for too long (speedlings will finish at 6 minutes or later) I will probably opt for a double stalker opening. The thing about the double stalker opening is I can follow my initial two stalkers up with two more, and then expand, or expand behind the first two. If I see such a late gas as Spanishawa's I'm going to have four very fast stalkers at the zerg's natural. A zerg player in this situation would need at least 2 spine crawlers to defend, and even then I can run up the ramp with my stalkers. You're going to have to make a ton of lings which will never be able to kill a stalker, and I get up a pretty fast expansion. All those lings, spines, and queens you made is going to result in even worker counts AT LEAST. Not to mention you'll have late tech and no map control. In the replay I saw of kcdc he was playing very risky with his forward aggression so early, so I think he lost because of bad play. If you watch the probe to drone comparisons he forced you to only have a 3-5 drone lead throughout the early to mid game, and you got ahead due to decisions that aren't caused by your build or style of play. Imagine if instead of pressuring you with a zealot/stalker there were two very fast stalkers followed by two more. And once seeing you sink so many minerals into spines/lines/queens I know that you can't be offensive with anything but a lot of ling/banelings meaning I'm free to do nearly anything I want. Looks to me like this opening against Protoss will only work if the Protoss doesn't know how to react. You can't run up the ramp because of a drone block--the Z can see you come within crawler range and just hold ~6 drones on the ramp. Two crawlers will kill a stalker before they can run up to the ramp, see the block, and run back, so you can't exploit the loss of mining time. At least, that's what I've seen Spanishiwa do against early ramp aggression, and I've found that it works for me. After all, if the stalkers can't run up the ramp, they can't do much at all, and chronoing out 4 fast stalkers does hurt the P. | ||
|
Clbull
United Kingdom1439 Posts
How well does this build fare in low level ZvZ? I mean at Bronze level (facing Silver opponents atm), nearly every single ZvZ I've done has resulted in a race to see who can get Zerglings, Banelings or Mutalisks first. I can't help but feel that either a 6 pool or a baneling rush can cripple this build greatly. What I mean is you can fight off a 6 pool attacking the mineral line if you have enough drones and move them properly to surround the lings, trap them in the mineral line and massacre them, but this is a fast expand with a slightly delayed Spawning Pool. Can't the Zerg player just pressure your expansion and force you to either cancel it or send drones to defend it? Furthermore, if you're delaying gas and focusing entirely on drones, queens and zerglings with a certain degree of creep spread, can't the Zerg just overwhelm you either with speedlings or a baneling bust? | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On April 09 2011 07:42 imareaver3 wrote: You can't run up the ramp because of a drone block--the Z can see you come within crawler range and just hold ~6 drones on the ramp. Two crawlers will kill a stalker before they can run up to the ramp, see the block, and run back, so you can't exploit the loss of mining time. At least, that's what I've seen Spanishiwa do against early ramp aggression, and I've found that it works for me. After all, if the stalkers can't run up the ramp, they can't do much at all, and chronoing out 4 fast stalkers does hurt the P. Drones blocking the ramp is risky and dumb. What if I don't decide to move up the ramp? What if I just peak up the ramp and see your drones there? What if I got a zealot across the map to tank the spine and just snipe it off with the Stalkers? Yes, a single spine crawler. You saying there will be two crawlers just shows you don't know what you're talking about; you need two crawlers to cover your natural against stalkers so you don't get anything picked off. You need two to cover the area, they won't both be in range of the ramp (on most maps). Plus if you had two crawlers ready to go by the time I have two stalkers at the natural you're behind already due to a sunk 300 minerals; I might as well make another nexus somewhere. The point is, is that in a realistic game you can't know what I'm going to do and prepare drones on a ramp to perfectly counter a single thing out of the many options a protoss player has with early stalkers. The thing is without speedlings you have to make both spines and lings that will put you at at least even worker counts, and you have no ability to be aggressive and your tech is delayed. The point of 2 or 4 Stalkers isn't to kill you, it's to force you to not make drones. | ||
|
effdee
United States7 Posts
| ||
|
VictorX
United States773 Posts
On April 09 2011 07:51 CecilSunkure wrote: Drones blocking the ramp is risky and dumb. What if I don't decide to move up the ramp? What if I just peak up the ramp and see your drones there? What if I got a zealot across the map to tank the spine and just snipe it off with the Stalkers? Yes, a single spine crawler. You saying there will be two crawlers just shows you don't know what you're talking about; you need two crawlers to cover your natural against stalkers so you don't get anything picked off. You need two to cover the area, they won't both be in range of the ramp (on most maps). Plus if you had two crawlers ready to go by the time I have two stalkers at the natural you're behind already due to a sunk 300 minerals; I might as well make another nexus somewhere. The point is, is that in a realistic game you can't know what I'm going to do and prepare drones on a ramp to perfectly counter a single thing out of the many options a protoss player has with early stalkers. The thing is without speedlings you have to make both spines and lings that will put you at at least even worker counts, and you have no ability to be aggressive and your tech is delayed. The point of 2 or 4 Stalkers isn't to kill you, it's to force you to not make drones. I've had this happen to me, and it is very annoying, but not too detrimental, because it is so easy to scout. A faster 2nd gateway, plus chrono boosting out a first stalker, is not difficult to spot with the first scouting drone (which I keep in the enemy base to see what comes out after the first zealot). When I see this I make my spines faster than normal, positioned to deny stalker harass. Also stalker after zealot always spells aggression to me, which has me make spine crawlers earlier than usual (in case of the 1 gas 4gate which hits lightning fast). A question I have is whether it is more economic for a zerg to put up those spine crawlers and have two extra queens (that are forced to be earlier than usual), or is it more economic to have built the extractor, mined the gas, researched speed, and made the slings required to force early aggression to retreat (lings in this case would probably be cheaper in minerals, but cost much more larva)? Another big question that comes to mind is whether it hurts the Zerg more to place spines faster (spines that were to be made anyways to drone safely), and make a few more slow-lings to deny the ramp run? Or does it hurt the Protoss more to chrono out two fast stalkers rather than warpgate tech or probes? This I am unsure about. Also, what about faking gas? I wonder if it would be viable to simply take the gas, and then proceed to not mine from it (or cancel it) once lings pop and the probe is denied. It would cost money, but the trickery could be invaluable. | ||
| ||
