|
On January 13 2012 05:57 treemaster wrote:
This whole topic is quite sad.
Let's sum up shall we?
1. New, aggressive Zerg build gets posted
1. a) "pro" spouts Starcraft math that proves the build to be absolute shit
2. Someone who actually understands both math AND the game completely rips our "pro" a new one
2. a) "pro" blusters some more, but never acknowledges his basic math as utterly wrong
2. b) hordes of numbskulls say "well I'm an idiot but if the pro says so....."
3. "pro" challenges the build to an unfair match
3. a) despite having every advantage, and despite the arrogant bluster, "pro" loses 3 in a row
3. b) numbskulls and "pro" dig in their heels anyway, because who admits they are wrong on an Internet forum?
Well, you may have noticed a large number of quotation marks in this post. That is because I believe that "being a professional" is not simply a meaningless title. Rather, I believe it's meaning to be more literal.
If you want to be treated as a professional perhaps it would behoove you to act like one.
Performing the metaphorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears screaming "nananana I can't heeeaaaarrr youuu"
has the metaphorically equivalent effect of making you look like a whiny self-important child.
Thanks for posting this build, tang !
Wouldn't it be great if there was some actual discussion on it?
13 post dude comes in and writes like this about a very respected pro member of the community. Good stuff.
Seriously, you're giving those of us protecting tangs build a bad name. Darkforce is not a "pro", he's a pro. His arguments are sound and he knows what his talking about and TangSC himself appreciates him posting in the topic.
Your post just comes of as really arrogant and insulting towards darkforce.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 13 2012 06:10 agahamsorr0w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 13 2012 05:57 treemaster wrote:
This whole topic is quite sad.
Let's sum up shall we?
1. New, aggressive Zerg build gets posted
1. a) "pro" spouts Starcraft math that proves the build to be absolute shit
2. Someone who actually understands both math AND the game completely rips our "pro" a new one
2. a) "pro" blusters some more, but never acknowledges his basic math as utterly wrong
2. b) hordes of numbskulls say "well I'm an idiot but if the pro says so....."
3. "pro" challenges the build to an unfair match
3. a) despite having every advantage, and despite the arrogant bluster, "pro" loses 3 in a row
3. b) numbskulls and "pro" dig in their heels anyway, because who admits they are wrong on an Internet forum?
Well, you may have noticed a large number of quotation marks in this post. That is because I believe that "being a professional" is not simply a meaningless title. Rather, I believe it's meaning to be more literal.
If you want to be treated as a professional perhaps it would behoove you to act like one.
Performing the metaphorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears screaming "nananana I can't heeeaaaarrr youuu"
has the metaphorically equivalent effect of making you look like a whiny self-important child.
Thanks for posting this build, tang !
Wouldn't it be great if there was some actual discussion on it? It's because of people like you that Idra and other progamers don't post here anymore. He can say whatever he wants and I would go with his arguments instead of the ones of "people that can do math". Darkforce has more experience in the game and doesn't go fancy on the "math". I also give him right because I myself did roach pressure but stopped because of players like goody and thorzain being able to defend against me without any problem and then being ahead.
Ahhh here's another person who would rather stick their head in the sand than admit that at NO TIME in that build do you "sacrifice" 16 workers causing you to "lose 1000 mins 24 supply and larvae"
Holy hell, 16 workers are only worth 16 supply so maybe you should try approaching it from a logical perspective of lost mining time vs. advantages of aggression?
Instead of backing up FALSE numbers with pro-worship and "ur fault TL sucks noob"
How about you try a reasoning logical assessment of the build.
I sure as hell know there hasn't been one in the last ten pages.
Edit: well dark force may have your respect but what little of mine he had before went completely out the window in this topic.
How much more mindless do you have to be? And where exactly does post count enter into this?
Also I agree, tang has been incredibly tolerant of dark force despite his shitty attitude
You can call him a pro all you like, it will not make him any more Professional.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Ahhh here's another person who would rather stick their head in the sand than admit that at NO TIME in that build do you "sacrifice" 16 workers causing you to "lose 1000 mins 24 supply and larvae"
Holy hell, 16 workers are only worth 16 supply so maybe you should try approaching it from a logical perspective of lost mining time vs. advantages of aggression?
Instead of backing up FALSE numbers with pro-worship and "ur fault TL sucks noob"
How about you try a reasoning logical assessment of the build.
I sure as hell know there hasn't been one in the last ten pages.
There is no advantage to the aggression, at least I haven't noticed any. I don't like to delay my macro hatch because it's so important to have the macro hatch done before taking a third while going muta. Muta defends drops better than infestors. The macro hatch is a good way to enter mid game. I don't see how you lose minerals, I would rather say you delay the mining of it and thus delay tech structures that you need anyways and try to contain terran in one base. Do I need to back my info up with replays? I really don't want to help people like you have more fun with the game.
Edit: I don't worship Darkforce, I think that the adrenaline got too fast into your brain man. I play casually.
|
Wow! What an absolutely telling post. (trolling, telling, telling of trolling)
No advantages to the aggression? Well I guess he should just delete the op then
I think there are numerous advantages to the aggression, not least the fact that terra can no longer sit comfortably
What about forcing the cc to lift?
Forcing scvs to spend mins repairing rather than gaining minerals mining
Giving yourself a more comfortable space to drone up/take third
All quite easily apparent advantages, unless you are just trolling?
|
Interesting, although - is their an issue with holding mid game pushes (standard tank marine thor) with the combination you have following this BO? Just wondering.
|
Canada1866 Posts
Can't we all get along! DarkForce did nothing wrong in voicing his opinions and asking me to play some games. We were both very respectful in the games, and even though we left with differing views on the build, we never criticized one another.
Everyone can agree that there are benefits to this style as opposed to basic macro zerg, but there are also weaknesses. All in all, it's really not the build that matters - it's making sure whatever build you execute is precisely planned with solid execution. This argument could go on forever because neither side is definitively "right" and there doesn't really need to be any personal attacks as a result of differing opinions, it's inevitable that we disagree. In fact, some of the best tweaks I have made in my own play have been the direct result of negative criticism I've gotten from using this type of build. In essence, if it weren't for skeptical people, builds would not be perfected so even if you're passionately convinced (like me) that this is a great ZvT build and you've tried it successfully 100 times, you have to respect and take into account others' feedback.
|
That's not an advantage, I would say it's making the game even after giving up income.
|
On January 13 2012 06:24 treemaster wrote:
How much more mindless do you have to be? And where exactly does post count enter into this?
Go to the forum TL Community and read up on the TL.net ten commandments. Especially Commandment 6 applies in this situation.
|
This build is aboslutely an all-in. It should be an auto-lose unless it does significant damage, it just cuts too many drones. You might be able to "take a third" with it, but you don't have the economy to support a third base for a long time. If a Terran player doesn't realize how much it actually puts you back in economy he may not punish you properly for doing it, which lets you get back into the game, but that doesn't make it a "solid" build.
Edit: To expand on my comment about the third, you're taking your third with a roughly similar amount of workers on minerals as there would be for a quick (before 5:00 mark) third vs. a FFE Protoss. The reason it works vs. a FFE Protoss is because he can't get up the army to punish you for it before the advantages of the third kick in. Such is NOT the case in this situation, where as soon as the Terran can shove you out of the natural he can start to apply pressure that will keep you from ever being able to fully take advantage of your investment into a third base.
A 4-gate rush is considered an all-in for similar reasons. The fact that it's technically possible to "transition" from it doesn't really change that. In fact, if you'd like to compare it to a 4-gate, you hit with the same number of workers as a 4-gate would a full minute and a half later than that rush hits.
This is NOT a "good build." It is a somewhat effective all-in if it doesn't get blind countered, but any good Terran should be able to punish you hard for it if they hold off the initial rush.
|
Canada1866 Posts
On January 13 2012 06:55 RampancyTW wrote:
This build is aboslutely an all-in. It should be an auto-lose unless it does significant damage, it just cuts too many drones. You might be able to "take a third" with it, but you don't have the economy to support a third base for a long time. If a Terran player doesn't realize how much it actually puts you back in economy he may not punish you properly for doing it, which lets you get back into the game, but that doesn't make it a "solid" build.
A 4-gate rush is considered an all-in for similar reasons. The fact that it's technically possible to "transition" from it doesn't really change that. In fact, if you'd like to compare it to a 4-gate, you hit with the same number of workers as a 4-gate would a full minute and a half later than that rush hits.
This is NOT a "good build." It is a somewhat effective all-in if it doesn't get blind countered, but any good Terran should be able to punish you hard for it if they hold off the initial rush.
I wish you'd put some effort into trying it out and supplying the replays before asserting that it's not a good build.
|
On January 13 2012 06:55 RampancyTW wrote:
This build is aboslutely an all-in. It should be an auto-lose unless it does significant damage, it just cuts too many drones. You might be able to "take a third" with it, but you don't have the economy to support a third base for a long time. If a Terran player doesn't realize how much it actually puts you back in economy he may not punish you properly for doing it, which lets you get back into the game, but that doesn't make it a "solid" build.
A 4-gate rush is considered an all-in for similar reasons. The fact that it's technically possible to "transition" from it doesn't really change that. In fact, if you'd like to compare it to a 4-gate, you hit with the same number of workers as a 4-gate would a full minute and a half later than that rush hits.
This is NOT a "good build." It is a somewhat effective all-in if it doesn't get blind countered, but any good Terran should be able to punish you hard for it if they hold off the initial rush.
GL HF transitioning out of a failed 4 gate, you're on one base, your opponent is already way ahead in economy and you'll never ever get an expansion up. This tactic leaves you with 2 bases and a third on the way. It's comparable to a 3gate expand with a push as you expand, not a 4 gate.
|
Well I am pretty familiar with the rules here, but I guess I missed the one that says its ok to belittle people based on post count.
Good job though tang, seriously, and I am glad to hear dark force was respectful in your games
That was certainly not the impression he put forward in his posts.
Forgive me if I misunderstood matters. While I am a player who will drone like nuts in the "standard" style, I really appreciate viable builds that are out of the norm.
It bothers me to see well thought-out builds dismissed with a sneer despite the evidence.
Solely because they aren't standard. Well I'm tired of cookie cutter.
Where exactly is the rule saying all zergs must play the same "hold 'd'" strat?
|
On January 13 2012 07:01 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 06:55 RampancyTW wrote:
This build is aboslutely an all-in. It should be an auto-lose unless it does significant damage, it just cuts too many drones. You might be able to "take a third" with it, but you don't have the economy to support a third base for a long time. If a Terran player doesn't realize how much it actually puts you back in economy he may not punish you properly for doing it, which lets you get back into the game, but that doesn't make it a "solid" build.
A 4-gate rush is considered an all-in for similar reasons. The fact that it's technically possible to "transition" from it doesn't really change that. In fact, if you'd like to compare it to a 4-gate, you hit with the same number of workers as a 4-gate would a full minute and a half later than that rush hits.
This is NOT a "good build." It is a somewhat effective all-in if it doesn't get blind countered, but any good Terran should be able to punish you hard for it if they hold off the initial rush. GL HF transitioning out of a failed 4 gate, you're on one base, your opponent is already way ahead in economy and you'll never ever get an expansion up. This tactic leaves you with 2 bases and a third on the way. It's comparable to a 3gate expand with a push as you expand, not a 4 gate. How is it that different?
If you don't do any damage with this build, then GL HF transitioning out of it.
If you do some damage with either build, you break even.
If you do a lot of damage, you're ahead.
|
On January 13 2012 06:57 TangSC wrote:
I wish you'd put some effort into trying it out and supplying the replays before asserting that it's not a good build. I've watched your replays. It's a good all-in, but it's not a "good build." A good build doesn't rely on mistakes from your opponent to work.
|
On January 13 2012 07:01 Tobberoth wrote:
GL HF transitioning out of a failed 4 gate, you're on one base, your opponent is already way ahead in economy and you'll never ever get an expansion up. This tactic leaves you with 2 bases and a third on the way. It's comparable to a 3gate expand with a push as you expand, not a 4 gate. It doesn't leave you with a "third" on the way. It leaves you with what amounts to a macro hatch in a more vulnerable location, because you will still be on a <2-base economy for a while.
It's a build that WILL work vs. somebody who doesn't understand how many sacrifices Zerg has to make to do such a heavy push. It won't work against somebody who understands how to punish it. Which is why it's an all-in.
|
Hi Tang,
i did read like 90% of the comments in this thread and didn't find anything about gas steal and i was curious...
Some time ago i read about gas steal discurages terran from going banshe.
(not to mention marines wich are not at the front anymore)
Is this still true and would it be viable for your strategy to implement?
Please tell me
|
On January 13 2012 07:11 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 07:01 Tobberoth wrote:
GL HF transitioning out of a failed 4 gate, you're on one base, your opponent is already way ahead in economy and you'll never ever get an expansion up. This tactic leaves you with 2 bases and a third on the way. It's comparable to a 3gate expand with a push as you expand, not a 4 gate. It doesn't leave you with a "third" on the way. It leaves you with what amounts to a macro hatch in a more vulnerable location, because you will still be on a <2-base economy for a while. It's a build that WILL work vs. somebody who doesn't understand how many sacrifices Zerg has to make to do such a heavy push. It won't work against somebody who understands how to punish it. Which is why it's an all-in.
Punish it how? By moving into an army of 8 roaches and 30 lings? By the time they have enough army to punch through that, you've gotten enough drones to warrant that third hatch and you can start building units again.
The whole idea that it's a macro hatch in a vulnurable position is stupid, you use the same tactic in ZvP vs FFE by getting a third by the 4 minute mark. You have about 6 drones on your natural when you send a drone to create it, doesn't make it any less of a third.
I'd love to see some examples of this punishment. Darkforce offracing terran didn't show it, TheDwf is apparently not good enough at TvZ to show it.. when will someone of your critics actually stand up to your claim and show some proof? I've already used the build on ladder to pwn terrans, I already have experience of it working, would be nice if someone could supply some hard evidence that it's so easy to punish.
|
On January 13 2012 07:03 blinkblue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 07:01 Tobberoth wrote:On January 13 2012 06:55 RampancyTW wrote:
This build is aboslutely an all-in. It should be an auto-lose unless it does significant damage, it just cuts too many drones. You might be able to "take a third" with it, but you don't have the economy to support a third base for a long time. If a Terran player doesn't realize how much it actually puts you back in economy he may not punish you properly for doing it, which lets you get back into the game, but that doesn't make it a "solid" build.
A 4-gate rush is considered an all-in for similar reasons. The fact that it's technically possible to "transition" from it doesn't really change that. In fact, if you'd like to compare it to a 4-gate, you hit with the same number of workers as a 4-gate would a full minute and a half later than that rush hits.
This is NOT a "good build." It is a somewhat effective all-in if it doesn't get blind countered, but any good Terran should be able to punish you hard for it if they hold off the initial rush. GL HF transitioning out of a failed 4 gate, you're on one base, your opponent is already way ahead in economy and you'll never ever get an expansion up. This tactic leaves you with 2 bases and a third on the way. It's comparable to a 3gate expand with a push as you expand, not a 4 gate. How is it that different? If you don't do any damage with this build, then GL HF transitioning out of it. If you do some damage with either build, you break even. If you do a lot of damage, you're ahead.
You've already transitioned by building the third, all you really need that army for is to contain the terran. Yes, you're behind if you don't do damage with it, but you haven't lost the game, far from it. You're catching up in economy while keeping terran aggression at 0.
|
+ Show Spoiler +You've already transitioned by building the third, all you really need that army for is to contain the terran. Yes, you're behind if you don't do damage with it, but you haven't lost the game, far from it. You're catching up in economy while keeping terran aggression at 0.
Terran can rush for a dropship and be an asshole with it :[. You are still droning and a dropship can do some damage if he keeps dropping on places where you don't have vision.
|
On January 13 2012 19:49 agahamsorr0w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You've already transitioned by building the third, all you really need that army for is to contain the terran. Yes, you're behind if you don't do damage with it, but you haven't lost the game, far from it. You're catching up in economy while keeping terran aggression at 0. Terran can rush for a dropship and be an asshole with it :[. You are still droning and a dropship can do some damage if he keeps dropping on places where you don't have vision.
This is true for all builds and should be handled like every other situation, overlord spread etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
